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

Discloses the uniqueness failure condition ('Fails if the new slug is already in use') and the scope boundary (does not move member resources), which add context beyond annotations that only state openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false. No contradiction: destructiveHint=false is consistent with a non-destructive rename.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action is front-loaded, the failure condition follows, and the scope warning closes the definition. No filler, no repetition of schema content.

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 2-parameter rename with a full output schema and annotations covering the side-effect profile, the description covers purpose, failure mode, and scope boundary. Success behavior is left to the output schema, which is appropriate.

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 both parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces new_slug's per-tenant uniqueness and adds the 'folder prefix' metaphor, but it adds little beyond the schema's own 'unique per tenant; hierarchical path segments allowed'.

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 (rename) and resource (app slug), and defines the slug as a unique per-tenant identifier/folder prefix. The scope emphasis ('this renames the APP') distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_schedule_slug and from resource-moving operations.

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?

Provides clear context on scope: it operates on the app slug and explicitly excludes moving member resources, which are matched by their own slugs. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools explicitly (e.g., rename_schedule_slug), so some tool-routing is left to inference.

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