rename_decoration_preset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation affects the display name across every saved version while leaving content and history untouched, and it states that Kiln Pro is required. However, it does not describe permissions, reversibility, failure behavior, or whether other names or references are affected.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence. However, the following sentences are largely promotional tier/upgrade text and an upgrade URL, which dilute conciseness for an invocation-focused definition.

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 tool is a simple two-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description covers purpose and change scope but leaves parameter semantics, expected return behavior, and operational constraints undocumented, so it is not complete enough for reliable 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 0%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies new_name via "display name" but does not explain preset_id format, constraints, or validation rules for either parameter.

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 and resource: "Rename a decoration preset." It also clarifies scope by saying the display name is updated across every saved version without touching content or history. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as rename_feature or rename_design, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar rename tools or when not to use it. The intended usage is implied by the rename action, but there are no alternatives, exclusions, or contextual triggers beyond the tier requirement.

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