Rename a session

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

The description clearly discloses the mutating nature ('Change') and the user-visible effect (display name shown in prompt box and session pickers). No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden, but for a simple one-field rename it adequately reveals the behavior and scope of the change.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the target, and the visible effect in a compact way, earning its place without redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with two required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return values, errors, or side effects beyond the display name, leaving a small but real gap in the agent's ability to handle the result.

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%, and the schema already explains both parameters: 'name' is the new display name and 'session' accepts a session name, id, prefix, or pid. The description adds only minor context about where the name is displayed, so it doesn't significantly expand on the schema.

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: 'Change a session's display name' and even clarifies where the name appears ('prompt box and session pickers'). This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_sessions, send_message, or get_reply, so an agent can identify what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'Change', but the description doesn't state a usage policy or compare to sibling tools.

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