Rename tag

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: it rewrites '#old' to '#new' in memo content, handles child tags, leaves code blocks and URLs untouched, preserves each memo's updated time, and defaults to a preview. This is rich behavioral detail that helps the agent avoid unintended destruction.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then immediately covers the preview constraint. Every clause adds useful information with no filler.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, child tags, exclusions, preservation of updated time, and the preview/dry_run workflow. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 from, to, and dry_run fully, including the 'without #' constraint and dry_run default. The description adds minor clarity by echoing '#old' to '#new' and reinforcing the preview behavior, but offers no new parameter-level semantics 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?

The description states a specific verb (rename), resource (tag), and scope (across all memos, active and archived), including child tag behavior. It clearly distinguishes rename_tag from siblings like update_memo or list_tags by focusing solely on tag renaming across content.

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 operational guidance: 'Runs as a preview unless dry_run=false — show the preview to the user first.' This tells the agent when and how to invoke safely. It does not name alternative tools for similar tasks, which is why it's not a 5.

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