Rename node

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

The description discloses that the previous name is returned, which adds value beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the idempotency isn't novel, but the return behavior is not documented in the schema. The editor support note also adds behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and includes only essential contextual details. No wasted words.

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 single-node rename tool with no output schema and partial schema coverage, the description covers the key behavior (return of previous name) and editor compatibility. It does not explain what happens if the node doesn't exist or if the name is invalid, but those are minor gaps. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent 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 coverage is 50%, meaning two parameters (session and idempotencyKey) have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add further meaning to any parameters. The baseline for 50% coverage is around 3, and no extra parameter details are provided beyond what's already in 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 'Rename one node' – a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the single-node scope from the sibling figma_batch_rename_nodes by saying 'Rename one node', though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. The editor compatibility note adds helpful context.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus figma_batch_rename_nodes. The mention of 'Rename one node' implies it's for single-node renaming, but no conditions or alternatives are spelled out. The editor compatibility note ('Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides') is useful but not usage guidance.

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