eda_pcb_drc_rename_rule_configuration

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait: only custom configurations can be renamed, and system configurations cannot. It also states the return value is a boolean indicating success. However, it does not explain error behavior, whether the rename persists immediately, or what happens if the original name does not exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the signature, followed by a one-line Chinese summary, a remark, and the return meaning. There is no filler or repetition beyond the signature/summary pair, which is acceptable for a low-complexity tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter rename operation, the description provides the essential callable signature, the custom-vs-system restriction, and return meaning. However, it lacks guidance on how to obtain valid configuration names, what happens on failure, and how this tool relates to the many nearby DRC configuration tools. Given no annotations and no output schema, this is only partially complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only provides a generic `args` array with empty item schemas plus `windowId`, so the function signature in the description is essential. It names both parameters (`originalConfigurationName`, `configurationName`) and their types, clarifying the positional order. It does not add deeper semantics like uniqueness rules, but it compensates for the otherwise opaque generic array.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description leads with the exact API signature `pcb_Drc.renameRuleConfiguration(originalConfigurationName, configurationName)` and the Chinese summary '重命名设计规则配置' (rename design rule configuration). This clearly identifies the operation (rename), the resource (rule configuration), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like `eda_pcb_drc_create_rule_configuration` or `eda_pcb_drc_delete_rule_configuration`.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The remark '只有自定义配置可以重命名，系统配置不允许重命名' states a constraint on system configurations but does not explain how to discover valid custom configuration names or when to prefer rename over create/delete/save/overwrite operations. No alternatives are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.