Rename key or move namespace

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety framing is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: preview-by-default (a non-obvious dry-run default), the hard refusal when a target key exists, and the namespace-vs-key branching rule. It still omits what happens to keys missing in some locales and any partial-failure behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, then the precondition, then the apply instruction. Every sentence carries distinct information 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?

For a destructive, multi-locale mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: default preview, refusal semantics, and mode selection. It is nearly complete, though it leaves open whether the operation is atomic across locales and what a preview returns.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to 'from' (namespace prefix ending in '.') and 'dryRun' (default preview vs. apply) beyond the schema text. 'to' and locale behavior remain slightly underspecified in the description.

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?

States a specific verb (rename) and resource (key), and adds a distinct second mode (whole-namespace move) with a concrete trigger ('from' ending in '.'). The example 'nav.' -> 'menu.' makes the operation unambiguous and separable from sibling mutation tools like i18n_upsert_translations or i18n_delete_keys.

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?

Explains the two modes and their selecting condition, plus a precondition (refuses when the target exists) and the apply path (dryRun:false). It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, so it falls short of full when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, but the operating context is clear.

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