Rename my application card

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. It discloses required preconditions, a user-confirmation gate, a state-freshness requirement, and a non-idempotency warning that aligns with idempotentHint=false. It also clarifies the tool's scope by excluding release-related actions. Nothing contradicts 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 dense sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by prerequisites, exclusions, and a safety caution. Every sentence adds functional value, and the structure makes the most important information immediately visible.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is highly complete: it covers prerequisites, exclusions, and retry behavior. The only gaps are that 'fresh unchanged state' and 'exact user form confirmation' are not further explained, leaving some ambiguity about how to verify them. Even so, an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly in most situations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that app_id comes from list_my_apps, which gives meaning to that parameter. However, the 'name' parameter is not explicitly described as the new display name – it is only implied by the verb 'rename' and the schema constraints. This is minimally adequate but leaves some inference to the agent.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rename an app_id from list_my_apps.' It clearly identifies the object being acted on and even points to the source list for valid app_ids. The explicit non-goal ('Does not upload/edit a release or publish') further distinguishes this tool from the many release-related siblings.

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 gives explicit prerequisites: verified dev role, owned catalog membership, fresh unchanged state, and exact user form confirmation. It also states when NOT to use the tool (for uploading/editing/publishing) and adds a critical safety rule ('Never retry an unknown write outcome'). This is strong when/when-not guidance that helps an agent choose between this and sibling tools.

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