rename_skill

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses mutation and conflict blocking, but lacks detail on side effects (e.g., old slug invalidation, required permissions, reversibility). For a rename operation, more transparency is needed.

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?

Single sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with action and key constraint. No wasted words; efficient and clear.

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 an output schema (not provided), description need not explain return values. However, it lacks details on conflict behavior, error states, and what happens to the old slug. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more informative.

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 has 0% description coverage and 2 required params. Description mentions 'slug' and 'canonical skill slug' but does not explicitly explain each parameter's format or role. Partially compensates by context, but leaves ambiguity (e.g., whether slug is new name or identifier).

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Rename'), resource ('canonical skill slug'), and a distinctive behavior ('blocking unmanaged destination conflicts'). This differentiates it from siblings like update_skill or deactivate_skill.

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?

Description implies usage for renaming a skill slug while avoiding conflicts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others (e.g., update_skill) or provide exclusions.

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