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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false but say nothing about referential consequences. The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: agents and cron triggers reference by ID and survive the rename, while configs naming the profile under subagents must be recompiled. That non-obvious downstream effect is exactly what the agent needs, though permissions/rollback are unaddressed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and config-preservation guarantee, followed by the downstream referential behavior. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 4-param mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral dimension (what happens to references) and stays concise. It could note whether the old name is reserved or whether duplicate names are rejected, but the essential call-time context is present.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the NFC normalization and whitespace constraints on name. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Renames an agent profile') with an immediate scoping clause ('without changing its config') that distinguishes it from profiles_update. An agent can differentiate this from the sibling profiles_update without opening either 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?

The description implies when to use it (name change only, not config change) by contrasting with config mutation, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never explicitly names an alternative like profiles_update or states when not to use this tool, so an agent must infer the routing.

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