plasticity_rename_group

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety framing is covered. The phrase 'through document history' usefully implies the rename is journaled and revertible via plasticity_undo, which goes slightly beyond the annotations, but nothing is said about required permissions, failure modes, or revision handling.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifiers come before the action detail. It is economical, though the density of qualifiers ('current non-root native') without elaboration slightly hurts readability.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description omits the most operationally important detail — what 'revision' is and why it is required. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the parameter gaps leave an agent guessing how to construct a valid call.

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% for all four parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them — and it explains none. It never says that 'id' identifies the group, that 'revision' is a required concurrency/version token, or that 'intent' is an optional annotation.

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 verb (rename) and resource (group) with meaningful qualifiers: 'one', 'current', 'non-root', 'native'. This distinguishes it from generic singletons like plasticity_rename and from plasticity_rename_reference_mesh, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Constraints ('one current non-root native group') imply the preconditions without stating them as when-to-use guidance. There is no explicit statement about when to choose this over plasticity_rename or plasticity_create_group, and no exclusion for root groups beyond a qualifier.

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