rename_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful effects: the display name changes across every saved version, and content/history are untouched, plus a Kiln Pro requirement. However, it omits permissions, reversibility, conflict behavior, and return semantics.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the rest is promotional plan text and an upgrade URL that consumes space without helping an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 simple two-parameter rename tool, the description covers the core action and key side effect. But with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should do more to explain parameter expectations and call behavior.

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 must compensate. It implies that new_name is a display name and feature_id identifies the feature, but it gives no format, validation, or constraint details 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 gives a specific verb and resource: rename a mechanical feature and update its display name. It also clarifies the scope across saved versions, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling rename tools such as rename_design or rename_design_branch.

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 intended action is clear from the first sentence, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The remaining text is plan/upsell messaging rather than usage guidance.

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