Rename preset

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

The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes much further: it reveals the copy-then-delete sequence, that the renamed preset becomes active, that unsaved config overrides are discarded, and that the slice becomes invalid requiring re-slice. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that annotations cannot convey.

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 purposeful paragraphs: the first gives the core mechanism and limitation, the second details side effects. Every sentence adds unique, actionable information without fluff.

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?

Given the rich schema (100% coverage) and annotations, the description covers the full behavioral picture, including constraints and post-conditions. There is no output schema, so return-value details are not expected. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to invoke this tool and what to expect afterward.

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?

All three parameters already have descriptive text in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. It does not, but the schema alone is sufficient for understanding old_name, new_name, and type.

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 specific operation: renaming a user preset via copy, select, and delete. This distinguishes it from related symbols like delete_preset, save_preset, and select_preset by naming the exact mechanism used.

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?

It explicitly states when the tool is applicable (user presets only) and when it is not (system presets are read-only). It also compares behavior to select_preset, giving context for expected side effects, though it stops short of naming alternative tools or explicitly saying 'use X instead.'

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