renameExecute

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context beyond this: the operation physically WRITES every previewed object, requires lock/transport preconditions, and critically is not a transaction — a mid-way failure leaves already-renamed objects changed. This partial-failure disclosure is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs to know and could not infer from the annotations.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, each earning its place: the purpose is front-loaded, the write-scope and prerequisites follow, and the non-transactional failure behavior closes. No filler, no repetition of what annotations already state, and the structure makes it scannable for an agent.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the high-risk aspects an agent needs before calling: what gets written, required object states, and failure semantics. Minor gaps remain — the return/response format on success is not mentioned, and the nested refactoring object's structure is left to the schema's minimal description — but these are secondary to the behavioral risks that are fully addressed.

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% (the 'refactoring' parameter is described as 'The rename refactoring'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only indirect parameter guidance by implying the refactoring object comes from the earlier preview steps, but it does not explain what fields the nested object must contain or how it should be constructed, which is acceptable given the workflow dependency.

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 states a specific action ('apply it') on a specific resource (the rename refactoring) and anchors it in a workflow ('Third step of a rename'). It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tools renameEvaluate and renamePreview by step position rather than by a generic verb like 'execute'.

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?

'Third step of a rename' gives clear sequencing context, implying the agent must have run the preview first, and the description spells out concrete preconditions: objects must be free of locks and, outside $TMP, in a transport request. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'do not use before previewing', but the workflow framing makes this clear enough.

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