Rename a category or label

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that feeds and articles keep their assignment (non-destructive behavior) and the resolution order, which are important behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose. It does not mention permissions, idempotency, or error states, but for a rename tool these are adequate.

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 three sentences, starting with the primary action and then adding nuance and behavioral assurance. Every sentence adds unique information, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 description covers the main behavioral aspects (resolution, preservation of assignments) but does not mention return values or error cases. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left wondering what the tool returns on success or failure. For a simple mutation tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 100% with descriptive parameter comments. The description adds value by explaining how the 'name' parameter is resolved against categories and labels, which is not in the schema. This additional context helps the agent understand the lookup behavior beyond the schema's mention of 'exactly as in list_categories'.

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) and the two resources (category or label). It explicitly covers both types, which is more specific than a vague 'rename something'. The sibling distinction is implicitly handled by covering both categories and labels in one tool.

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 explains the resolution order (categories first, then labels), which helps the agent understand how the tool works. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'delete_category_or_label' or provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It also omits prerequisites like listing categories first, though the schema parameter description hints at that.

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