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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope context: only the display title changes and the slug is preserved, which bounds what the 'destructive' hint actually affects. It does not mention permissions or whether the change is reversible after the call, keeping it below 5.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the important invariant (slug unchanged) immediately after.

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 two-parameter mutation whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers the essential scope question. Only minor gaps remain (auth requirements, response behavior), which is acceptable with no output schema.

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%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by mapping slug to the stable identifier and title to the display title, but adds no format, length, uniqueness, or validation details an agent would need.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: changes a deck's display title, explicitly limited to title (not the slug). An agent can distinguish it from delete_deck, get_deck, or list_decks, though no sibling is named directly.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., set_script, create_talk) and no prerequisites or exclusions. The rename intent is self-evident from the verb, but nothing guides tool selection.

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