origin_rename_template

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it does not redraw the graph, renames specific file types (.otpu/.json/.png) and updates the index. It also reveals the return format for failure cases ('renamed: false' with a reason). This provides adequate transparency for a simple rename operation, though the success return is not explicitly stated.

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 short and to the point: one sentence for the main purpose, followed by a concise technical note on file operations and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, affected files, and failure return. It lacks details on success return and prerequisites (e.g., template must exist), but it is largely complete for an agent to understand the operation's scope.

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 0% and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the property names. It does not explain that 'old_name' must be the current template name or that 'new_name' must be unique and valid. For a tool with only two parameters, the description should at least clarify these constraints.

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 clearly states the tool renames a user template, specifying the resource ('saved user template') and the key behavior ('without redrawing the graph'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'origin_delete_template' or 'origin_update_template_metadata' by focusing on renaming with a specific non-redraw effect.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it does not mention when to choose rename over other template operations, nor does it indicate constraints like the template must exist or not be in use. The description implicitly suggests usage for renaming but lacks comparative context.

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