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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, destructive write (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds real context beyond them: the section key and questions survive, duplicate names (case-insensitive) are rejected with a 409, and the rename persists across module template reinstalls. That conflict code and persistence rule are exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot express. Missing are authorization requirements and failure modes for an unknown section_key.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then dense, useful constraints — the 409 rule, the same-name no-op, and reinstall persistence all carry information. Slightly cryptic phrasing ('every reader shows the new name') costs a point.

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 3-parameter mutation with safety behavior already covered by annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the important extras: conflict handling, no-op semantics, and durability across reinstalls. It stops short of covering missing-section errors or permission requirements, but is otherwise sufficient to call 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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's note that the key and questions stay as they are restates and slightly reinforces the section_key semantics, but adds no format, range, or lookup detail the schema lacks.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Rename a section of this automation's Policy.' The scope of what is and is not changed (key and questions untouched) is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near siblings such as removeConfigSection, reorderConfigSections, or addConfigSection, but the verb is inherently unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for renaming an existing section whose key is known. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing and no statement of prerequisites (e.g., needing write access to the automation, or that the section must exist). Guidance exists but must be inferred.

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