cb_rename

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying a mutation that is not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'rename'. It does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, whether it updates references elsewhere, or what happens on failure. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add value beyond the structured hints.

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, concise phrase with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, though it lacks richer context. It is front-loaded in that the core action is stated immediately, earning a high score for conciseness even if under-specified in other areas.

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 mutating tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention error conditions (e.g., if the branch does not exist), idempotency (annotations say false), or post-rename effects to other workspace state. An agent would need additional information to safely invoke this tool in a real workflow.

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%, so each parameter (root, old, new) has a brief semantic description. The tool description itself does not augment parameter understanding. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters, and this is the case here, though the descriptions are minimal.

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 states a clear verb and resource: '重命名实验分支' (rename experimental branch). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like cb_checkout or cb_branch based on the action. However, it does not clarify what 'experimental branch' means or contrast with other branch types, so it slightly lacks the precision to fully stand apart.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a large set of sibling branch tools, an agent gets no indication of when renaming is appropriate, prerequisites (e.g., branch existence), or cases where another operation (e.g., cb_branch) would be better. The description carries no usage direction.

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