rename_instrument

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it discloses that all fields' form_name are updated, that the change is internal-only, and that a confirmation with count is returned. This is informative, though it does not mention reversibility or potential impacts on references.

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, focused sections with no filler—purpose, caveat, args/returns.

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?

The tool has only two simple parameters and the description covers its purpose, parameter formats, side-effect limitation, and return value, making it fully sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema lacks descriptions, but the Args section in the description defines both parameters, including the naming convention for new_form_name (lowercase, underscores, no spaces), adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Rename an instrument') and the mechanism ('updating the form_name on all its fields'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_instrument or delete_instrument.

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 note about changing only the internal name while the display label must be updated separately provides clear context on when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly reference alternatives.

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