Conduit

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations cover idempotency (idempotentHint: true) and non-destructive nature (destructiveHint: false), the description discloses the return format ('Array of objects... with original and new name(s)') and clarifies the dual input modes (single vs batch). This provides important operational context not captured in annotations.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence immediately states the core functionality, the second explains the input options, and the third clearly describes the return format. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 rich annotations (including idempotency, edge cases, and examples) but no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the return format that the annotations don't cover, though it could potentially mention more about error conditions or the relationship between the two parameter options. Given the comprehensive annotations, the description does well but has minor room for improvement.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters ('rename' and 'renames') including their structure, constraints, and descriptions. The description mentions the dual input modes but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not exceptional value addition.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('renames') and resources ('nodes in Figma'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_node', 'move_node', or 'duplicate_node' which perform different operations on nodes. The description explicitly mentions both single and batch renaming capabilities, making the scope unambiguous.

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 description provides clear context about when to use this tool by explaining it accepts either single or batch rename configurations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'set_node_prop' for other property changes. The annotations provide usage examples but the description itself lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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