rename_feature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a strong job disclosing failure semantics: silent rename refusal on name collisions, read-back verification, error on mismatch, and no-op success for same-name renames. It still omits prerequisites, side effects, and undo behavior, 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 tightly structured: purpose first, then two concise behavioral facts. Every sentence earns its place, and no redundant or filler text is present.

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?

The description covers the core rename operation and its important error/no-op semantics, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not needed. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could mention what happens when old_name does not match any feature.

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 nested old_name and new_name parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when structured fields already carry the load.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a feature on the feature tree.' That is clear and distinct from sibling operations like delete_feature or suppress_feature, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against any alternative tool, so it falls short of the top score per the rubric.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_feature or suppress_feature, nor any stated prerequisites like needing an open document. The behavioral notes about duplicate names and no-op renames are useful but do not constitute usage guidance.

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