Rename a team workspace

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: permission requirements (team-scoped credential with specific scope), the need for an existing workspace id, and the condition that at least one of name/slug must be provided. It does not mention potential side effects like URL changes from slug modification, but the presence of annotations lowers the bar. This is solid, though not exhaustive.

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 description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then provides essential operational details. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, credential requirement, parameter constraint, and sibling tool reference. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, 1 required), presence of output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, how to find the workspace id, the required credential, and the parameter constraint. Error cases (slug clash) are already documented in the schema. The description provides all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

With 100% schema coverage, each parameter already has a description. The description adds meaningful semantic content beyond the schema: it specifies that `name` and `slug` are mutually optional but at least one is required, which is not captured by the schema's required field (workspace). This relationship constraint adds value, so the score is above the baseline 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Rename a team workspace or change its slug, by its workspace id.' It specifies the verb (rename/change), resource (team workspace), and method (by workspace id), distinguishing it from siblings like dropthis_update_settings or dropthis_delete_workspace.

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 provides clear usage context: requires a team-scoped credential (with explicit permission ADR-0068: workspaces:write; owner/admin), and instructs to use dropthis_workspaces to find the workspace id. It also clarifies that at least one of `name` or `slug` is required. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or differentiate from alternative tools like dropthis_update_settings, so it stops short of a 5.

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