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

Annotations only cover the generic profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive); the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — only the name changes, links/versions/visibility/analytics are untouched, no version content is modified, and every rename is audited. That is exactly the value-add expected on top of annotations.

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 action, then the disambiguation rule, then side-effect guarantees. The keyword list ('keywords: rename, change title, retitle') is mildly redundant noise but the rest 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?

No output schema, and the description covers side effects, non-effects, audit behavior, and the rename-vs-publish distinction, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. Only the undocumented proposal_id leaves a small 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 coverage is 50% (proposal_id undocumented), so the description must compensate. It does so for 'title' by explaining that the page name is distinct from the manifest title, though it adds nothing for proposal_id.

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 ('Rename a page') and explicitly distinguishes the page name from a version's manifest title, which is the exact confusion an agent would otherwise have. This separates it from siblings like publish_version and set_visibility.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger condition: 'If the page title changed but lists still show the old name, rename it with this tool,' and clarifies that publishing a new version does not rename the page. It does not name alternative tools (e.g. move_proposal) or state exclusions, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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