rename_chain

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing blast radius — the chain file, ticket references, declaration files, handoff files, catch files, and parent/child chain references are all rewritten. It does not state reversibility or failure behavior on conflicts, so not a 5.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and complete; the following multi-line list of affected files is informative but somewhat padded by line breaks rather than prose. No egregious waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a destructive rename that rewrites references across many artifacts, the description covers what is touched but omits what happens on partial failure or whether the operation can be undone.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0%, and the description contributes nothing about the parameters — it never mentions chain_id, new_title, or the kebab-case conversion of the title. The description therefore fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving parameter meaning to the raw schema only.

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 chain') and then enumerates the concrete effects (updates chain_id, renames YAML file, fixes cross-references). This clearly separates it from siblings like update_chain_metadata or create_chain. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling distinction, so it is not 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?

Usage is implied by the name and the description — you rename a chain when its title/identifier must change. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over update_chain_metadata (which also mutates chain metadata) or any prerequisite/exclusion statements. Implied usage only.

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