Rename a collection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the rename preserves id and membership. However, it does not mention ownership/permissions, error behavior, whether the operation is reversible, or the effect of the dry_run parameter.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a concise rationale that helps an agent make the right tool choice.

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?

The description is adequate for understanding what the tool does and why it is preferable to deletion, but it is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. Missing guidance on id vs name selection, dry_run behavior, and expected results leaves gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 50%; new_name and dry_run have no schema descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining how to choose between id and name, what dry_run does, or how new_name relates to the other parameters. It adds no real parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific operation ('Rename a collection') and immediately clarifies the defining constraint ('keeping its id and membership'), which distinguishes it from create/delete-and-recreate among the sibling collection tools. It is not a tautology and adds meaningful scope.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative ('delete-and-recreate') and gives the condition that selects this tool ('your library shelf layout references collection ids'). This gives an agent clear guidance on when to prefer rename over destructive alternatives.

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