rename_column

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by specifying exact success output (`v:{new_hash}`), error output format, the requirement for a fresh version hash, and the guarantee that row data is unchanged. It could add more about reversibility or effects on references, but the provided transparency is above average.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior, then gives success/error behavior, then lists parameters in a clean Args block. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials completely: operation semantics, prerequisites, parameter meanings, and return/error formats. An agent has enough detail to call this tool correctly without needing to open sibling tool definitions.

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%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. Every parameter is explained: file_path, table_index, version with its 12-char hex hash format, old_name with accepted forms, and new_name. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema property names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a column header.' It clearly distinguishes the operation from row-level edits by noting 'Row data is unchanged,' and the header focus separates it from insert/delete column siblings without requiring the agent to infer anything.

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 provides clear context for use: it renames a column header, leaves row data alone, and requires a version from read_table. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'Row data is unchanged' caveat and prerequisite guidance make the intended scenario clear.

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