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

Annotations already declare destructive=false-idempotent-and mutable (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The description adds meaningful domain context by explaining the versioning model: versions are immutable and only the name may change here, which clarifies why a rename is the sole mutation available.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the routing constraint. No filler or repetition of the field list.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needs only to convey scope and the immutability rule, which it does. It stops short of noting permission requirements or what happens to prior names, a minor gap for a simple rename.

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 description adds nothing about the two parameters beyond the verb 'rename'. The schema itself does document both the id (UUID target) and name fields in detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter meaning; a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Rename custom terms') and immediately names the sibling that handles the other operation (create-custom-term-version). An agent can distinguish this from update-custom-template and create-custom-term-version without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (renaming) and when not to (content/terms-text changes), and routes to the correct alternative (create-custom-term-version). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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