重命名工作表

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the core action (rename) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether oldName must match exactly/case-insensitively, or what happens if the target name already exists.

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 a single efficient sentence ('修改工作表名称。') with zero waste. It is appropriately brief, though it borders on under-specification.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more: clarify what happens on collision (renaming to an existing sheet name), whether Excel formula references are updated, and confirm the file must already exist. The description is minimal for a tool with 3 required parameters.

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 coverage is 67% (newName and filePath have descriptions, oldName does not). The schema itself describes the newName constraints well, but the description adds nothing beyond restating the action. The oldName parameter's semantics are only implied by the tool name.

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 states it modifies a sheet name (修改工作表名称), which is clear and specific. It distinguishes from siblings like add_sheet/delete_sheet, though it doesn't explicitly reference them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that the sheet must exist, whether renaming affects formulas/references, or distinguish from add/delete operations.

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