Rename section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Rename an existing section' indicates mutation but doesn't clarify idempotency, permissions needed, or what happens to existing data (e.g., children in section). It's minimally transparent but lacks depth about side effects or requirements.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple rename operation. Loses a point for being too terse—could briefly note prerequisites (e.g., section must exist) without harm.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core purpose but omits behavioral details like whether the rename is instant, affects linked features, or requires special permissions. Completeness is adequate for a straightforward rename but could address potential agent questions about side effects.

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 coverage is 50% (one of two parameters has description), and the description adds no parameter details. However, the schema itself covers section_gid and name adequately, with section_gid having a clear description including how to find it. The description could mention constraints (e.g., name uniqueness) but isn't required given schema quality. Baseline 3, increased to 4 because schema provides good guidance for both params.

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 'Rename an existing section' clearly identifies the verb (rename), resource (section), and action, which distinguishes it from siblings like section_create and section_reorder. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate its purpose from the tool name itself, missing a slight opportunity to add scope or context.

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 implies usage when renaming a section, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., section_create for new sections, project_update for project-level changes). With no explicit when/when-not or alternatives, the agent must infer from sibling tool names.

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