rename_token

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

The description discloses the default reference update behavior and the option to disable it. However, it does not explain the 'stage' concept, whether changes are reversible, required permissions, or if it's a direct mutation.

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?

Two sentences with clear front-loading. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds critical detail about reference rewriting and the optional parameter. Every sentence is informative.

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?

Without output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context on side effects, staging semantics, return values, and error conditions. The unexplained 'set' parameter is a notable gap.

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 description mentions 'from', 'to', and 'updateReferences' implicitly or explicitly, but does not explain the 'set' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to fully compensate for all parameters.

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 tool stages a rename and moves a token path. It mentions the default behavior of updating references, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from bulk_rename_tokens or other sibling tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_rename_tokens or creating/deleting tokens. The description focuses on mechanics, not decision support.

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