rename_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It aptly reveals that renaming updates positions, orders, history, and the default pointer, warning about side effects. However, it omits details like reversibility or permission requirements, though these are less critical for a rename operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every phrase adds value. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to scan and quickly understand.

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 relatively simple rename tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and critical side effects. It lacks edge-case guidance (e.g., behavior when old account doesn't exist) but remains largely complete for an agent to use safely.

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 explain any of the parameters. While 'old' and 'new' are self-evident, 'agent' and 'idempotency_key' are left completely unexplained. This is a significant gap given the schema provides no 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Rename a paper portfolio' with a specific verb and resource. It goes beyond a simple restatement by mentioning the side effects on positions, orders, history, and the default pointer, which also distinguishes it from sibling tools like account_create and set_default_account.

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 when to use the tool (when a rename is needed) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It does not compare with account_create or set_default_account, leaving the decision rules to the agent's inference.

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