neurover_rename_workflow

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

The annotations already declare that the operation mutates data (readOnlyHint=false) without being destructive (destructiveHint=false) and that it has an open-world scope. The description adds no behavior beyond that: it does not say what happens to the old name, whether the rename is idempotent, what the 120-character limit means in practice, or what the 'account' parameter does.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted wording, so it is not bloated. However, this brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency; a useful rename tool needs more than four words.

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?

The tool has a mutation annotation, three parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, so the description must carry almost the full burden. A four-word sentence in a different language from the tool name leaves the agent without enough information to call it confidently.

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 schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters. The description does not explain workflowId, name, or account at all, so it does not compensate for the total lack of schema documentation. In particular, the meaning and optionality of 'account' are left entirely unexplained.

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 is a single verb plus a vague resource: 'Переименовать полотно' ('Rename the canvas'). It does not say that the 'canvas' is a workflow, and it gives no differentiation from the sibling neurover_rename_node, which also renames something. The only thing that disambiguates it is the tool name itself.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to use instead (for example, neurover_rename_node, neurover_update_node, neurover_create_workflow). The agent must infer everything from the name.

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