openclaw_node_rename

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

Without annotations, the description must bear the burden. It only states 'Mutates,' which indicates a write operation but omits important details such as side effects, error conditions, or permissions. The reference to 'Wraps node.rename' is uninformative.

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 very short, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It front-loads the action but could be more structured without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, many sibling tools), the description is far from complete. It does not explain the relationship to other node tools or what the return value is.

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 only 25% schema description coverage, the description fails to clarify the purpose of parameters like 'name' and 'newName'. The mention of 'display name / id' is ambiguous and not mapped to parameters. Significant gap even for basic interpretation.

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 renames a node, mentioning both display name and id. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as the only rename operation. However, it is slightly vague about whether both name and id are changed simultaneously.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like openclaw_node_describe or openclaw_node_list. No prerequisites or conditions for renaming are mentioned.

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