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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the owner-only permission constraint and stating what is returned (new title plus an open link), which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: action first, then the permission constraint, then the return value. Every sentence earns its place, especially the return statement given there is no output schema.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the authorization requirement, and the response shape. It is essentially complete, with only the edit_flow boundary left unclarified.

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 100% and both parameters are self-describing ('The new title.', 'The id of the flow to rename.'). The description adds no format, length, or uniqueness constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Change the title of a saved Wavelength flow'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like edit_flow, duplicate_flow, and rename_folder. An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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 adds an important prerequisite ('Only the owner can rename a flow'), which functions as an authorization gate. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this versus edit_flow, which might also modify a flow's title, so usage is only implied.

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