rename

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds the non-obvious side effect that 'the root's title is updated' regardless of which revision is passed, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not cover reversibility or permissions, but the key side effect is disclosed.

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 with no fluff. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds behavioral detail and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value.

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 with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the operation, parameter semantics, and usage context. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but these are less critical given the low complexity and straightforward action.

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 explains that 'revision may be any revision in the lineage' and that the root's title changes, giving meaning to both parameters. The title parameter's role is implied as the new name, though not explicitly stated, so a slight deduction applies.

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 opens with 'Rename a design,' which is a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes the action by noting that any revision in the lineage can be used and that the root's title is updated, clarifying exactly what the tool does.

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 explicitly states 'Use this when the title set at design creation no longer fits,' giving a clear context for use. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using the 'edit' tool for other properties, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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