rename_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. While it mentions using sp_rename and a constraint, it lacks critical details such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., on dependencies), reversibility, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Concise at ~90 words, front-loaded with purpose, then key constraint, then parameter list. Every sentence is informative with no waste, well-structured for quick scanning.

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?

Explains all parameters and a key constraint, but lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and usage guidance beyond the constraint. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be detailed, but missing behavioral traits makes it only moderately complete for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so thoroughly with clear labels and examples (e.g., 'qualified_name: Current dot-separated qualified function name, e.g., dbo.fn_clean_input') and constraints on new_name, adding significant value beyond the schema's type/required info.

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?

Clearly states it renames a T-SQL user-defined function via sp_rename. The verb 'rename' is specific and the resource is explicitly functions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rename_table or rename_view.

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?

Provides context on where it works (Data Warehouses and SQL Analytics Endpoints) and a key constraint (bare identifier, no schema move). However, it does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives or when not to use, but the resource-specific nature offers implicit guidance.

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