sound_set_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Rename an instrument' without revealing any side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens if the target doesn't exist. It does add the context that target is a guid or path, but omits any mention of mutation implications or return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, with a single purpose statement and two-line argument list. It is front-loaded with the action, uses no filler words, and every word earns its place. This is an exemplary level of 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 tool, the description covers the basics but lacks important context: no mention of return values, error conditions, uniqueness requirements, or whether renaming affects references. Given the tool's simplicity and the lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement in explaining behavioral outcomes.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It does: 'target: Instrument {guid} or path' and 'name: New name.' This adds meaningful value beyond the schema's bare type declarations. The explanation is clear, though it could mention constraints like uniqueness, but the provided semantics are adequate for this simple tool.

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 action ('Rename') and the resource ('an instrument'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling rename tools (event_set_name, snapshot_rename, bank_rename, mixer_group_rename) by specifying the instrument type. This is a specific verb+resource pairing.

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 when to use this tool (for renaming instruments) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance like 'use event_set_name for events' or any exclusions. The resource type in the description provides implicit context, but no explicit usage direction.

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