herdr_agent_rename

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

Annotations already declare it is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) that is neither idempotent nor destructive. The description adds only the 'live agent' qualifier; it does not explain name-collision behavior, whether renaming affects the running session, or why the operation is non-idempotent. Relies on annotations for safety profile with little added context.

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?

A single short sentence covering both modes with zero filler, front-loading the primary action.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally adequate but omits how 'name' and 'clear' interact (what happens if both or neither are supplied) and any effect on the live agent's state.

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 100%, so the schema already documents 'name', 'clear', and 'target'. The description restates the two-mode behavior but adds no format, constraints, or mutual-exclusivity rules beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rename a live agent') plus the alternative action ('clear its name'), which is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like herdr_agent_get or herdr_agent_focus. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 implies the two modes of use (set a name vs. clear it) but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites, such as the agent needing to be running. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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