rename_draft_plan

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond the renaming action. The mention of 'short display prefix' is unclear in terms of effect or side effects.

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 concise (one sentence) but at the expense of completeness. It provides no structure or breakdown of the tool's functionality.

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 has 4 parameters (3 required) and no parameter documentation, the description is severely lacking. The presence of an output schema does not excuse missing explanations of inputs like 'expected_hash' and 'confirmed'.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any of the four parameters (name, plan_id, confirmed, expected_hash). The agent has no clue what 'expected_hash' or 'confirmed' mean in this context.

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 action (rename) and the object (one managed library plan). However, the phrase 'using the configured short display prefix' is ambiguous and might confuse agents unfamiliar with the system concept.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_draft_plan or clone_draft_plan. There is no mention of prerequisites or context that would help an agent decide to invoke it.

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