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

The annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true). The description restates only the mutation itself and adds no behavioral context such as reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to the old name. No credit for the annotation-only safety disclosure.

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?

A single ten-word sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource followed immediately by the gating condition. No filler, no redundancy — every clause 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and when to invoke it, and annotations carry the safety profile. It does not address the surprising destructiveHint (why a rename is destructive, e.g. overwriting a name) or any success/failure outcome, leaving a modest gap.

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 100%, so both parameters (title, listingId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ("Rename") and resource ("property folders"), which usefully overrides the misleadingly generic tool name update_listing. It is clearly distinguishable from create_listing (creates) and list_listings (reads), though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

"only when they ask" gives a concrete trigger condition (respond to an explicit user request) rather than leaving invocation context to inference. It offers no comparison to alternative tools such as create_listing or list_listings, but the when-to-use condition itself is clear.

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