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

With annotations declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, the bar is lower, yet the description goes far beyond them: the old address stops serving, the old name becomes available to another service, agent channels survive because they address by id, the architect agent cannot be renamed, well-known skill names are preserved, and a new SKILL.md version is published with holding agents picking up the change. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by kind-specific behavior in a logical sequence. It is long but nearly every clause carries distinct, non-redundant information; only the density slightly hurts scannability.

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 complex rename affecting four entity kinds, the description covers the per-kind consequences, the permission/account requirement, the immutable special case (architect agent), and even the answer shape for skills. With no output schema, the description steps in where needed and leaves nothing critical to inference.

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 baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds real meaning: it clarifies how kind is used to force a refusal on a mismatched name, and that new_name becomes the first host label of the new URL for site/app/skill. org_name default behavior is left entirely to the schema, which keeps this from being a 5.

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 ('Rename a website, app, agent, or skill') and enumerates the entity kinds it operates on, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like create_service, destroy_service, or restart_service. The title and opening sentence align precisely with the operation.

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?

Explains the routing condition for the optional kind parameter ('Pass kind to say which you mean; a name holding another kind is then refused rather than renamed') and notes the account prerequisite. It gives clear usage context but never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use case beyond the kind refusal.

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