rename_variable

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by stating that the variable id is unchanged and existing bindings keep working, which reinforces the non-destructive hint. It also mentions the return shape and the folder grouping behavior. However, it doesn't cover potential errors or permission requirements, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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, immediately front-loaded with the action and example. It includes only necessary details (folder grouping, id stability, return value) 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the purpose, behavior, and return value. The output schema is absent, but the return is explicitly stated. Given the low complexity and clear annotations, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The schema already describes both parameters (variableId and name), and the description adds useful semantics: the example for the name format and the fact that the id remains unchanged. This adds value beyond the structured schema descriptions.

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 action 'Rename' with the specific resource 'variable' and provides a concrete example ("color/primary" → "color/brand"). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_node or rename_page, 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 gives clear context on when to use this tool—for renaming variables—and explains the naming convention with slashes for folder grouping. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear for this focused operation.

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