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

The description discloses the uniqueness failure behavior, which adds value beyond the annotations. It does not mention side effects on schedule versions, references, or URLs, but the annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive.

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 concise sentences with no redundant wording. The key purpose is front-loaded and the failure condition is stated efficiently.

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 simple rename operation, the description adequately explains the purpose and a critical failure mode. It does not elaborate on post-conditions or impact on references, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap rather than a major omission.

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 schema already covers both parameters well, and the description mostly repeats their meaning while adding the 'unique per-tenant identifier' context for new_slug. This adds slight semantic value but does not provide substantial new parameter details 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 a specific action ('Rename') on a specific resource ('a schedule's slug') and adds the defining scope ('unique per-tenant identifier'). This distinguishes it from other schedule operations like create, update, delete, and the sibling rename_app_slug.

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 states the key failure condition ('Fails if the new slug is already in use'), which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over update_schedule or other schedule modification tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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