pbi_rename_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses one meaningful behavioral trait (the internal ID does not change), which helps agents understand side effects, but it omits other relevant details like whether the rename affects references, permissions, or error scenarios.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the key action and the important caveat. No unnecessary words or repetition; every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple, and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks usage context, parameter details, and any mention of prerequisites or side effects beyond the internal ID note. It is minimally adequate for a rename but not fully complete.

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%, and the description does not clearly map parameters to their meanings. It implies 'page' and 'new_name' are the page identifier and new visible name, but it does not specify the format of 'page' (e.g., ID or name) and completely ignores 'request_id'.

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 ('Cambia el nombre visible de una pagina') with a specific resource (page) and result (visible name change). It distinguishes from sibling page operations by focusing on rename via the explicit verb and the added note about internal ID preservation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbi_duplicate_page or pbi_reorder_pages. The description implies usage for renaming but offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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