SmartProspect: rename a fetched search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable nuance: it explicitly states 'creates or modifies remote state: yes,' 'Blocked in readonly mode,' and 'Does not consume credits.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate side effects and operational restrictions.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a safety block and endpoint. However, there is some redundancy: 'Modifies remote state' and 'Does not consume credits' are repeated from the safety block, which slightly reduces conciseness.

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 rename operation with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It includes the endpoint, safety characteristics, and operational constraints. It does not detail return values, but an output schema exists, so that is not required. A clear statement that the search must already exist would have made it a 5.

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 input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (id and search_string), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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 begins with a clear verb+object statement: 'Rename an existing fetched SmartProspect search (fetched lead set).' This precisely distinguishes the tool from siblings like save_search or update_saved_search, and the 'fetched lead set' clarifies the target resource.

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 context on when to use the tool (for renaming an existing fetched search) and includes operational constraints such as 'Blocked in readonly mode.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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