neurover_rename_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds the side effect ("Меняет полотно") and a discipline rule about only acting on explicit user requests, but says nothing about reversibility, name-constraint rules, or failure modes such as a missing nodeId.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, zero filler. Marginal redundancy in "Меняет полотно" given readOnlyHint=false, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 mutation tool with four parameters, zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description does not explain any parameter, the expected result, or errors. It is adequate as a routing hint but insufficient as a calling guide.

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 0% across four parameters (workflowId, nodeId, name, account), so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It only implies that a new name is supplied via the verb, and leaves the meaning and preconditions of workflowId, nodeId and account entirely undocumented.

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?

"Переименовать плитку" gives a specific verb (rename) and resource (tile/node), which is separable from siblings like neurover_rename_workflow or neurover_update_node. It does not spell out the 'плитка' -> node terminology mapping, so an agent must infer that a tile is a graph node, but the intent 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?

Explicitly restricts invocation to direct user requests about tiles/canvas and names the alternative for the general case (prepare_generation via canvas chat). Missing differentiation against closely related siblings such as neurover_update_node or neurover_set_text_node, which also alter node state.

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