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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming exactly what a destructive rename does NOT touch (ids, keys, public URLs), which directly reconciles the scary destructive hint with what actually changes. It stops short of disclosing auth requirements or validation behavior.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the scope caveat immediately after. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a single-parameter rename. The description covers what changes and what does not, which is sufficient for correct invocation, though it could mention permission prerequisites.

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 0%, so the description carries some burden. Saying 'display name' plus 'ids, keys, and public URLs are unchanged' does tell the agent that the single `name` parameter is a human-readable label rather than an identifier — useful semantics — but it omits the 80-character limit and any format constraints.

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 ('Change the ... display name') and resource (workspace), with a scope clause clarifying what is not affected. It is distinguishable from the similarly named siblings (fillo_rename_form, fillo_rename_project, fillo_rename_discord_channel) by the resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or on prerequisites (e.g. required scope/permission, whether the workspace must be published). The description is purely descriptive; the agent must infer usage context.

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