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

The description is transparent about the failure mode (slug in use), the scope (renames the app only, not member resources), and the nature of the operation. Annotations are consistent (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds important behavioral details beyond those flags.

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?

The description is two sentences, directly addresses the action, condition, and scope, and contains no redundant or filler information. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation and the existence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what is renamed, the failure condition, and the non-effect on member resources. No additional explanation is needed.

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?

The input schema provides descriptive entries for both parameters, including constraints on new_slug (unique per tenant, hierarchical path segments allowed). The description adds useful conceptual context (folder prefix) that helps interpret the parameters, going slightly beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Rename an app's slug'), specifies the resource, and clarifies the scope (per-tenant identifier/folder prefix). It also distinguishes the effect from moving member resources, which helps the agent understand exactly what this tool does.

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?

It provides a key condition ('Fails if the new slug is already in use') and a note about not moving member resources, which helps prevent misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., rename_schedule_slug) or state when to prefer this tool over others, though the sibling list makes the context clear.

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