rename_design_branch

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It usefully discloses that the new name must be unique per design and that retired branches are excluded, but it omits permissions, side effects, and whether renaming affects references.

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 useful description is front-loaded in one sentence, but it is followed by unrelated plan/upsell marketing content that does not help an agent invoke the tool. That promotional text is waste and degrades the 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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete: it lacks branch_id semantics, permissions, and behavioral effects. The trailing sales pitch further distracts from what an agent needs.

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%, so the description must explain both parameters. It adds a uniqueness rule for new_name but says nothing about branch_id, leaving half the parameters semantically undocumented.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: renaming a branch. It does not explicitly say 'design branch' or distinguish this from sibling tools such as rename_feature, but the uniqueness constraint tied to a design adds useful specificity.

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?

It gives a uniqueness condition but no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like rename_design or rename_feature. No prerequisites or exclusions beyond retired branches are stated.

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