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

Annotations already signal mutation via destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying that the change is cosmetic: only labels in the Inspector and describe_video output are affected. This helps an agent predict the blast radius of the rename. The 'pure cosmetic' phrasing does not contradict destructiveHint, since renaming still mutates the project state.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, then a compact clarification of side effects. Every word earns its place.

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 three-parameter rename operation with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the affected surface, and the side-effect scope. The only meaningful gap is the lack of explicit parameter semantics for name and groupId, but the tool name and required-field naming make correct invocation highly predictable.

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 description coverage is only 33% (projectId is documented; name and groupId are not). The description does not compensate for this: it never explains that 'name' is the new display label or that 'groupId' identifies the target group. While the tool name makes some of this obvious, the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('a group'), immediately identifying the operation. 'Pure cosmetic' further clarifies the scope of the rename, distinguishing it from functional mutations. The resource word 'group' cleanly separates it from sibling rename_* tools like rename_layer, rename_project, and rename_version.

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: whenever a group's display label needs changing. It does not explicitly contrast with rename_layer, rename_project, or rename_version, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The clarification that labels appear in the Inspector and describe_video output gives some practical context, but the exclusion/alternative guidance is left to inference.

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