rename_view

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

Despite no annotations, description adds behavioral context: uses sp_rename, works on specific environments, and explains naming constraints. Could mention dependency impact but inherently clear for a rename.

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?

Three sentences plus an Args list. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose, then usage context, then parameter details. Ideal structure for quick comprehension.

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 tool complexity (rename with constraints) and no annotations, description fully covers purpose, environment, parameter details, and edge cases. Output schema likely covers return values, so description complete.

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?

All four parameters are described in detail with examples (e.g., qualified_name: 'dbo.vw_sales', new_name: 'vw_revenue'). Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by providing full 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?

Description explicitly states 'Rename a SQL view via sp_rename', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling rename tools like rename_table and rename_function by specifying SQL 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 clear when-to-use context: works on Data Warehouses and SQL Analytics Endpoints. Includes important constraint that new name must be unqualified and cannot move schemas, guiding correct invocation.

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