set_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the scope qualifier "my account's" and reveals nothing further — no permission requirements, no validation behavior, no effect on existing sessions or mentions.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the operation is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is a symptom of missing content rather than model conciseness.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the essentials are present. What is missing is the relationship to the sibling set_profile and any note on permissions or side effects, leaving the agent to infer correct usage.

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%: the single parameter's meaning, the max-64-character constraint and its required status are all documented in the schema. The description's phrase "display name" merely echoes the schema, so the baseline 3 applies — no additional semantics are contributed.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Changes my account's display name"), which is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling set_profile, which plausibly overlaps in scope, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 when-to-use guidance beyond the single verb phrase. The presence of a sibling set_profile and use_account makes the absence of routing guidance a real gap — an agent cannot tell from this text whether set_name or set_profile is the correct tool for changing account identity fields.

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