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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the key and questions are preserved, that readers reflect the new name, that a duplicate name (case-insensitive) returns a 409, that renaming to the current name is a no-op, and that a module template reinstall preserves the rename. This is rich operational context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Four tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action followed by preservation, error, and persistence facts. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors an agent needs: what is preserved, the error case, the no-op case, and persistence across reinstalls. It could note authorization/permission requirements, but overall it is complete enough 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the note that the key and questions stay the same. The description reinforces this but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource+scope: 'Rename a section of this automation's Policy.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like addConfigSection, removeConfigSection, reorderConfigSections, and renameFile, which operate on different resources or actions.

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 conveys usage context implicitly by documenting preservation semantics and rejection conditions, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as addConfigSection or removeConfigSection. No explicit when/when-not routing is provided.

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