Rename entity

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotent; the description adds what annotations cannot: the rename cascades across every relation, tags are preserved to keep provenance metadata, failure is atomic ('fails without saving'), and the response summarizes relations updated. That is rich consequence disclosure beyond the structured hints.

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?

The cascade behavior and provenance preservation lead; failure semantics and the sibling pointer close. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the agent has cascade scope, failure behavior, data preservation, and an alternative tool pointer. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are self-documented ('current name', 'no other entity may have it'), so the description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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), the resource (entity), and an important scope detail: every relation naming it is also renamed. It also distinguishes itself from merge_entities by name, so an agent can separate the two without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete failure conditions (entity missing, name already taken) and routes the combine case to merge_entities. It stops short of a full when-to-use narrative against create/edit paths, but the alternative is named explicitly.

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