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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the live URL and links stay intact—a key behavioral detail agents need. It also notes the absence of a delete-app tool, further clarifying limitations. This complements the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each of the three sentences adds essential information—purpose, URL behavior, and alternative tools—without redundancy or filler.

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 operation, the description covers the critical behavioral constraint (URL unchanged) and the exact scope (display name only). An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere; nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters, and the tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the action ('Rename an app's display name') and clarifies the scope by noting that the URL and links remain unchanged. It also distinguishes this tool from delete_files, making its purpose unambiguous relative to siblings.

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 gives clear context on what the tool does and does not change (display name vs. URL), implicitly steering agents away from using it for domain changes. It references delete_files as an alternative for file removal, but does not explicitly contrast with other app-modification tools like modify_app.

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