Change title

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety profile is partly covered. The description adds concrete auth requirements (services:manage, full-access API key) that annotations don't provide, which is genuinely useful. It does not explain what changes or side effects, but the auth disclosure exceeds the annotation bar.

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?

One efficient sentence with zero waste; the action is front-loaded. Could be structured with the prerequisite separated from the action, but it is tight and readable.

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 2-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and auth requirements. It omits scope details (e.g., whether title must be unique, whether change is immediate) but annotations and schema carry most of the burden.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema including length constraints and patterns. The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema. 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Change service display title'. An agent understands it renames a service's visible title. It does not distinguish from sibling get_title or change_hostname, but the resource 'title' is specific enough to differentiate.

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 the prerequisite (services:manage and full-access API key), which is useful context, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternative (e.g., change_hostname, get_title) guidance. Usage is implied by the name only.

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