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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: empty-string values delete attributes, unmentioned attributes are preserved (explicitly NOT wipe-and-replace), 404 on unknown id and 'silent no-op is never the result', plus why source/agent are mandatory (audit trail). These are exactly the destructive-semantics and error-behavior facts an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then lookup, then a clearly delimited PROVENANCE block. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 5-required-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers mutation semantics, id provenance, error behavior, and mandatory audit fields. The only gap is the shape of a successful response, which is not described.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains the deletion convention, the verbatim string storage implication, and the rationale for the provenance fields (they land in the audit trail so the user can trace the edit). Only nameId/database get no extra semantic depth.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: 'Surgical attribute edit on an existing name,' and immediately distinguishes the operation from wipe-and-replace semantics. It is clearly separable from siblings like delete_name, apply_structure, and aql_write.

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?

It tells the agent where the required nameId comes from (apply_structure's namesResolved, describe_set, describe_query) and reveals a non-obvious usage path: renaming is done by setting default_display_name through this same call. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over aql_write or apply_structure for attribute changes.

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