rename_design

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does add real value by stating that branches, outcomes and parent_version chains survive the rename. It omits the traits that matter most for an id change: irreversibility, whether the old id breaks existing references, and required authorization. Also slightly ambiguous about how 'display name' relates to the two id parameters.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, followed by the invariance guarantees. Nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter rename with no annotations or output schema, the crucial unknown is what survives the operation, and the description answers that directly (branches, outcomes, parent_version chains intact). Remaining gaps—return value, permissions—are minor for this complexity level.

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 0% and neither parameter has a description, but old_design_id/new_design_id are largely self-explanatory and the description clarifies the direction of the change (old → new) and that all versions are rewritten. It adds no format constraints, validation rules, or explanation of the 'display name' aspect that has no corresponding 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?

States a specific verb (rename) and resource (design) plus the blast radius: both the id and display name change across every version. That implicitly separates it from rename_design_branch, rename_feature and rename_decoration_preset, though no sibling is named outright.

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 never says when this should be used versus alternatives such as rename_design_branch or archiving/recreating, and gives no preconditions (lock state, permissions, whether other users' references must be migrated first). Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.

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