リネーム

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that duplicate names are automatically handled with sequential numbering and that the tool returns the final name. The idempotentHint annotation is present, but the description's behavior could potentially conflict with idempotency if the generated name changes on repeat calls; however, no explicit contradiction is stated. The description does not address side effects or permissions.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds crucial detail about duplicate handling and return value. Every part is necessary and there is no wasteful text.

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 parameters, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers the essential behaviors: renaming, duplicate handling, and return of confirmed name. It does not cover validation rules (e.g., name character limits) or edge cases, but it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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?

The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the auto-numbering behavior for the name parameter and that the return value is the confirmed name. The schema itself provides descriptive parameter descriptions, but the tool's unique behavior (duplicate handling) is fully described, enriching the parameter semantics.

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 purpose: changing entity names. It explains the auto-numbering for duplicates and that it returns the confirmed name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, or duplicate entities, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 (to rename an entity) but does not explicitly state prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. It only mentions that the entity ID can be obtained from specific other tools, which is helpful but insufficient for full usage guidance. No alternatives are discussed.

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