Renumber node

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing that success is silent, that the operation is journal-recorded, that it refuses under a specific evidence condition, and that external document references will dangle. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a mutating tool with no output schema.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by critical refusal behavior, output expectation, and side-effect warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it explains the action, the failure condition, the silent success, the journaling, and the external-document caveat. An agent has enough to invoke it and anticipate outcomes.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description adds operational context but no additional meaning about the id and to parameters beyond what the schema states. 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 ('Change a node's id') and expands the scope ('rewrite every reference to it across the graph'). It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from generic siblings like set or field.

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?

The operation itself implies when to use it: when a node id must change and references need updating. It also gives a clear when-not condition ('Refuses while the old id appears in done-work evidence'). It does not name an alternative tool, but none is obviously needed given the unique operation.

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