Rename entity in registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates and is repeatable. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the underlying WS endpoint and that the previous name is not returned or preserved, which is what makes this destructive. It stops short of describing auth or rate constraints, but coverage is strong.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then structured Use when / Not for / Returns sections that make it scannable. The trailing 'Returns' line is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but the format is otherwise efficient and every section earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and a separate output schema, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: scope, prerequisites, exclusions, and the loss of the prior name.

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% with only two well-documented parameters ('name' replacement semantics, 'entity_id' format example), so the schema carries the burden. The description's 'name=name' mapping adds little beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Rename an entity in the entity registry') and clarifies the scope is the display name only. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like entities_assign_entity_to_area or entities_disable_entity without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' sections, with the not-for cases routed to three named alternatives (entities_assign_entity_to_area, entities_disable_entity, entities_enable_entity). Nothing is left to inference.

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