rename_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the rename action but does not mention mutating side effects, whether the field must already exist, whether names must be unique, or what happens if the old_name is not found.

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 short and well-structured: one direct statement followed by three parameter lines. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 three-parameter mutation, the description is minimally adequate: it explains all parameters and references open_document. However, with no annotations and no mention of failure behavior, preconditions, or effects, an agent is left to infer important operational details; an output schema exists, so return value documentation is not needed.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining each parameter in plain terms: doc_id is 'Document ID from open_document,' old_name is 'Current field name,' and new_name is 'New field name.' It adds meaning beyond the bare string types, though it omits constraints or expected formats.

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 opens with 'Rename a field,' a clear verb+resource statement that conveys the operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like set_current_field_name or modify_field_properties, so it misses the strongest level of differentiation.

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 only usage hint is that doc_id comes from open_document, which implies an open document is required. There is no explicit guidance about when to use rename_field versus similar field-related tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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