sieve_rename_script

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two key traits: the script remains active after renaming, and the operation fails if the new name is already taken. However, it omits permission requirements, what happens if the original script does not exist, whether the rename is atomic, and other mutation semantics.

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 three short sentences with no wasted words, and the core operation is front-loaded. Each sentence contributes a distinct, useful fact.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies the most important behavioral details: active status preservation and duplicate-name failure. The absence of annotations and an output schema leaves some minor gaps around permissions and error cases, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented clearly in the schema, including the case-sensitive script name and optional account context. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Rename a script on the server.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sieve_put_script, sieve_delete_script, and sieve_update_account. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself, but the description does not state when to prefer renaming over alternatives such as putting a new script and deleting the old one. The notes about active status and duplicate names are behavioral constraints, not guidance on when to invoke the tool.

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