bank_rename

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing mutational behavior. It does not mention any side effects (e.g., impact on references to the bank), required permissions, or reversibility. As a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 extremely concise—two lines total—with no filler. Every sentence provides necessary parameter guidance, and the purpose is stated upfront.

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 two parameters, the description covers the essential semantics. However, it lacks information about error handling, whether the operation is idempotent, or the provided output. The lack of an output schema and annotations makes this only minimally complete for a mutation tool.

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% but the description fully explains both parameters: target as 'bank:/ path or {guid}' and name as 'New name'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types.

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 'Rename a bank' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bank_create or bank_delete. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies usage context (renaming a bank) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. For a simple rename operation, this is adequate but lacks any guidance on when renaming is appropriate or not.

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