plasticity_rename

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation semantics are covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful trait — 'Undo support' — telling the agent the change is reversible, but it omits any mention of the revision/concurrency check or failure conditions that make a rename return an error.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. Its brevity is appropriate in form, though for a tool with three required parameters it reads as under-specified rather than efficiently minimal.

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?

With four parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and three required fields including an unexplained 'revision', the description is too thin for the tool's complexity. An agent can guess the intent but cannot know the preconditions or parameter meanings needed to invoke it reliably.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails it. 'one body' loosely implies 'id' targets a body, but 'name', 'intent', and the required 'revision' string are entirely unexplained, including the 120-char name limit and the role of revision.

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 ('Rename') and resource ('one body'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the nearby plasticity_rename_group and plasticity_rename_reference_mesh siblings that operate on other resource types. It is clear and correctly scoped, though it offers no further differentiation beyond the resource noun.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus renames of other resources, nor any prerequisite information. The required 'revision' parameter suggests an optimistic-concurrency precondition, but the description never mentions it, leaving the agent to infer when a call will succeed.

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