rename_source

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose two useful behavioral traits: the operation is RPC-backed with no browser, and ambiguous source names are refused rather than guessed. However, it does not cover permissions, reversibility, or what happens to source metadata beyond the rename, which leaves meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then adds only the identification and ambiguity details an agent needs. Every sentence earns its place without redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 a simple mutation with a fully documented schema and an output schema, and the description covers source identification and ambiguity behavior well. It could be slightly more complete by noting mutation safety or permission requirements, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that `source_id` can be found via `list_sources`, that `source_name` is an alternative identifier, and that ambiguous names are rejected, which goes beyond the schema's brief per-parameter descriptions.

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 ("Rename one source") plus scope ("inside a notebook"), and it points to `list_sources` for locating the source. An agent can distinguish this from source_list, source_add, and source_delete without opening sibling schemas.

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?

It clearly says to identify the source by `source_id` (with a pointer to `list_sources`) or by `source_name`, and it states that ambiguous names are refused. It does not explicitly compare this tool to adjacent alternatives like source_add or source_delete, but the context for when to use it is clear.

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