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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds substantive behavioral context: exactly what is preserved (key, position, links, target memory), the surprising fact that rendered documents are unaffected while exported file names change, the failure mode on slug collision, and the default dryRun safety behavior. This is precisely the kind of side-effect disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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 clause, followed by preservation semantics, side effects, failure mode and the dryRun caveat in a logical order. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers behavior, side effects, failure conditions and the dry-run option, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The only minor gap is that it does not describe what the tool reports back (e.g. the shape of the dryRun/commit result), but overall it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 nodeKey, newSlug and dryRun are already fully documented in the schema (including slug rules and the uniqueness requirement). The description reinforces the duplicate-slug failure and the dryRun default but adds little syntax or format information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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/reslug) and resource (one item or section in a bundle), and defines what a bundle is ('an ordered outline of memories for a book or project'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like muninn_bundle_node_repoint or muninn_bundle_node_delete, and it explains precisely which attribute is being changed (the 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?

The description makes the intended use case clear (changing a node's slug) and implicitly differentiates from muninn_bundle_node_repoint by stating 'the memory it points at' stays the same. It also documents the failure condition (duplicate slug) and the dryRun default, giving the agent enough context to call it safely, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use instead.

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