rename-collection

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), which the description doesn't contradict. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it doesn't explain potential side effects (e.g., impact on indexes or queries), authentication needs, or error conditions. With annotations covering basic safety, the description meets a low bar but lacks depth.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. There's no wasted verbiage or structural issues.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (renaming with a drop option), 100% schema coverage, and annotations providing basic safety hints, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values or errors, and it lacks context on behavioral nuances (e.g., what 'dropTarget' entails in practice). It meets the minimum but leaves gaps for an agent to navigate.

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 100%, with clear parameter documentation in the schema itself (e.g., 'database', 'collection', 'newName', 'dropTarget'). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying the tool operates on collections in MongoDB. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('renames') and resource ('a collection in a MongoDB database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create-collection' or 'drop-collection' by focusing on renaming, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all potential alternatives like modifying collection properties.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing collection), exclusions (e.g., when not to rename), or compare with similar tools like 'update-many' for metadata changes. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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