Rename a query cluster

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the name is lower-cased on storage, must be unique within the project, and the call is safe to retry. These storage and constraint details go beyond what the annotations convey, though it does not say what error results from a name collision.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the two constraints an agent most needs. No filler and nothing wasted.

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 rename with no output schema and annotations already covering safety and idempotency, the essentials are present. However, with 0% schema coverage on four parameters and no statement of failure behavior on a duplicate name, the definition is only adequate rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four required parameters, so the description must carry the semantics. It clarifies the 'name' parameter (lower-cased, unique, 200-char limit implied by schema) but says nothing about organizationId, projectId, or clusterId, leaving three of four parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (rename) and resource (query cluster) that is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like create_clusters, delete_cluster, and set_tracked_query_clusters. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 says what the tool does but never states when to use it versus alternatives such as set_tracked_query_clusters or create_clusters, nor any prerequisites beyond uniqueness. No exclusions or routing guidance are given.

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