Rename feature id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses validation of new_id, the refusal condition (folder already exists), the exact mutations (folder rename, frontmatter id rewrite, updated bump), what stays byte-identical (body), and what is deliberately omitted (reference updates). This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads the action, then sequences side effects and caveats in a single dense but scannable passage; every clause conveys a distinct behavior (validation, refusal, rename, rewrite, bump, immutability, return scope) with no filler.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description adds the useful note that only frontmatter is returned and points to get_feat for the full document. Combined with the mutation and refusal semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 compensate; it explains that `id` is the existing id and that `new_id` must match the feat-NNN-slug shape, adding real semantic constraint beyond the bare schema. It doesn't describe length limits or exact slug character rules, so not a full 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Rename an existing feature's id') and enumerates the exact operations performed (validate, refuse, rename folder, rewrite frontmatter). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_feat, get_feat, and edit.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition for new_id (feat-NNN-slug shape) and that references elsewhere are NOT updated or searched, which steers the agent away from assuming repo-wide consistency. It names get_feat as the follow-up to fetch the body, though it doesn't name an alternative tool for updating references.

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