Set display name in an Oase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It discloses a key side effect: 'Also updates the default name for future joins.' This goes beyond the basic write operation implied by 'Change'. However, it does not mention any constraints, error conditions, or return behavior. Given the simplicity of the tool, the disclosure of the side effect is valuable but not exhaustive, making a mid-range score appropriate.

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 extremely concise, with three short sentences that immediately convey the purpose, the optional parameter behavior, and the side effect. Every sentence carries essential information with no wasted words or redundant phrasing. The structure front-loads the primary function and then adds critical specifics, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the primary action, the optional parameter semantics, and a notable side effect. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., being logged in) but given the sibling tools for login/join, that may be implicit. The absence of return-value details is acceptable without an output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation in most scenarios.

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 input schema describes both parameters with basic descriptions ('Target oase id' and 'New display name'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds crucial semantic meaning for oase_id: 'Omit oase_id to use the default oase.' This clarifies that the parameter is optional and defines the default behavior, which is not evident from the schema alone. This addition elevates the score above the baseline of 3.

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 tool's purpose: changing the display name of the agent in an oase. It specifies the verb 'Change' and the resource 'display name in an oase', and mentions the agent's own name ('this agent'), which distinguishes it from any sibling actions. No sibling tool appears to involve name changes, so it stands out clearly.

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 gives specific usage guidance by explaining the optional parameter behavior: 'Omit oase_id to use the default oase.' This tells the agent when to omit the parameter and what the default behavior is. While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives (none are obvious among the siblings), it provides clear context on how to correctly invoke the tool in different scenarios.

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