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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that references from composed environments use the immutable slug, so renaming breaks nothing. It also discloses the return payload, going beyond annotation coverage.

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 sentences with zero filler: the action comes first, then the important immutability guarantee, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place and no information is repeated from the 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 rename operation, the description covers the action, the key side-effect constraint (slug immutability and non-breaking behavior), and the return value even though no output schema exists. Combined with the fully described input schema, an agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 three parameters with examples and guidance. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail and does not, which is acceptable under the baseline for full coverage.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change a shared group's display name.' It explicitly distinguishes renaming from slug changes and, by naming 'group,' differentiates this from sibling tools like rename_app. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 clear usage context: use this tool when the display name must change while the slug stays stable. It also states an exclusion—the slug is immutable—so the agent knows not to attempt slug changes. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_group or delete_group, but the context is sufficient.

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