update_naming_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the non-retroactive nature of the update and mentions that warnings will note this. It doesn't cover reversibility or validation behavior, but the key side-effect that matters to users is addressed. The 'partially updates' phrasing also implies a merge-like behavior, which is useful.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the action and resource, and includes a critical warning without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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's complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essentials: purpose, timing, and a key behavioral caveat. It doesn't describe return values or error handling, but these are not required without an output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

The description maps the high-level rule categories to specific parameters ('delimiter' to separator, 'case' to casing, etc.), which adds meaning beyond the schema. It also clarifies that the update is partial, meaning unspecified fields remain unchanged—an important semantic not in the schema. With 40% schema coverage, this compensation is necessary and well-executed.

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's function: 'Partially updates the naming rules' and enumerates the specific aspects (delimiter, case, unknown-word handling, self-reference role prefix). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_naming and generate_physical_name, which focus on validation and generation rather than configuration.

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?

The description provides clear contextual guidance: 'Existing physical names are not regenerated retroactively... set the rules before modelling.' This tells the agent when to use the tool relative to other actions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the timing guidance is strong enough for most use cases.

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