batch_rename_nodes

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

Annotations indicate write but not destructive. The description adds that missing nodes are skipped and returns { ok, affected }, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 two sentences: first explains the operation and input format, second adds behavior on missing nodes and output. Extremely concise with no redundant information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the input format, handling of missing nodes, and return shape. It is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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% with the parameter 'renames' described as 'Per-node rename instructions'. The description restates the input format, adding minimal new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description reinforces but doesn't significantly extend schema information.

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 it renames many nodes at once from a list of { nodeId, name } objects. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool rename_node which handles single nodes, making the purpose 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 implies usage for batch renaming when multiple nodes need to be renamed, and the sibling context shows rename_node for single nodes. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance but is clear enough for typical use.

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