rename_arrangement_cue_point

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

The phrase 'Plan or rename' reveals a dual dry-run/execution behavior, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain the sequencing or the need for planHash and confirmationToken when executing, nor any side effects. Since annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description carries more burden and only partially delivers.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and qualifier efficiently, though it is terse enough to omit workflow details.

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?

This tool has a non-trivial plan/commit workflow involving expectedStateVersion, planHash, and confirmationToken, and there is no output schema. The description does not explain that a dry run is required before execution or that omitting dryRun returns a plan. Schema descriptions fill some gaps, but the overall behavior remains under-explained 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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the phrase 'one exact,' which mildly reinforces the exact-match requirement of cuePointId.

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') and resource ('Arrangement cue point'), and adds the qualifier 'one exact,' which distinguishes it from create/delete/jump sibling tools by implying an existing, precisely targeted cue point. It also communicates the dual plan/execute nature of the tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of create_arrangement_cue_point, delete_arrangement_cue_point, or list_arrangement_cue_points. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or a usage context.

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