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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key side effect that prompts using the old @Name will no longer match, which is genuine behavioral context not captured in annotations, though it does not say whether the change is reversible or what the response contains.

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: the operations come first, then the consequence and the naming-rules pointer. No filler sentences.

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 small mutation tool with full schema coverage and non-destructive/idempotent annotations, the description covers what changes, the identifier source, and the downstream effect. Return value behavior is the only notable omission, and that is low-stakes here.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema itself, including the 32-char limit and enum values. The description adds only the cross-referential 'same naming rules as create_reference' for `name`, which is marginal over what the schema already states.

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 two specific operations (renaming and changing kind) on a specific resource, and names the source of the identifier (list_references). It is clearly distinct from create_reference/delete_reference, though it does not disambiguate against the generic sibling `rename`.

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?

Says where reference ids come from (list_references) and points to create_reference for naming rules, giving clear invocation context. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or what to use instead for moving/duplicating references.

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