rename_skill

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

The annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it moves managed skill content, updates registration, rejects unmanaged destination conflicts, and explains that the old slug may stop resolving. These details go beyond the annotations and help an agent understand the side effects and retry risk.

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 description is front-loaded and organized: purpose first, then routing, prerequisites, mutation behavior, and retry caution. The sentence listing returned metadata, paths, warnings, and write references is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, but overall the wording is efficient.

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 destructive rename operation, the description covers prerequisites, the alternative tool, managed-content movement, conflict rejection, and the risk that the old slug will no longer resolve. Return values are covered by the output schema, so the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including that slug is the required new canonical directory slug and that skill_id_or_name must identify an active canonical skill. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: renaming an existing canonical skill slug and reconciling managed locations. It explicitly distinguishes this from update_canonical_skill, which handles content edits, so an agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance for identity/path changes and names the alternative for content edits. It also states prerequisites (initialized project memory and an active canonical selector) and warns the old slug may not resolve after success, including an inspect-before-retry instruction.

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