Rename Tree

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real signal by stating that people, backups, and relationships survive the rename, which tells the agent this is a metadata-only mutation rather than a data-affecting one. It stops short of explaining whether the old name becomes reusable, whether the new name must be unique, or how the rename propagates to references.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the consequence clause. Nothing is padded or restated.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description does not need to explain return values, and the data-preservation note covers the main behavioral concern. However, for a mutation tool with an undocumented required parameter, the absence of name constraints and error/failure conditions leaves a visible gap.

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?

The 'tree' parameter is well documented in the schema (UUID preferred, or exact name as shown by list_trees), but 'new_name' has no description at all and the tool description adds nothing — no uniqueness requirement, character restrictions, or length limits. With only 50% schema coverage the description needed to compensate for the undocumented parameter and does not.

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 (tree) in the first sentence, which cleanly separates it from create_tree, delete_tree, and get_tree in the sibling list. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 verb — use it to change an existing tree's name — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated precondition such as the tree existing or the new name needing to be unique. The 'kept' sentence hints at when this is safe versus delete_tree, which is a partial substitute for real routing guidance.

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