rename_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the mutation is narrowly scoped, that nothing is re-solved, and enumerates what is preserved (key, recorded field, siting, notes). It omits permissions/error behavior and the base_rev concurrency requirement, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rationale that follows is short. The second sentence is slightly run-on and rhetorical ('forgetting the first'), but it earns most of its space by explaining the non-effects.

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?

Covers the what-changes/what-doesn't question well for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. But with 6 parameters at 50% coverage and no output schema, the definition leaves parameter usage and success/return behavior uncovered, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 only 50% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all. It never clarifies the crucial distinction between the 'name' parameter (which plan) and 'to' (the new name), nor the roles of save/world, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('Rename a saved plan') and immediately scopes it by declaring what does not happen ('Nothing is re-solved and nothing else about it changes'). An agent can distinguish this from the factory-naming siblings (rename_factory, name_factory) purely from the resource noun.

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 second sentence gives motivating context for when renaming is the right move ('a name is the only thing here a player picked, and it was the only thing they could not correct'), which implies usage. However, it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g. amend_factory, plan_factory) or states a when-not condition, so routing is left to inference.

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