Rename a tag

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses the high-impact propagation ('affects all of them at once'), flags it as risky, and introduces the confirmation-token requirement. This is meaningful behavioral context that structured annotations do not convey.

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 deliver the action, the scope, the risk, and the token requirement with no filler. The core action is front-loaded before the warning.

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 4-parameter update with a fully described schema and an idempotency annotation, the description covers purpose, scope, risk, and token flow. It does not describe the response format, but there is no output schema and the schema handles the mechanics, so only a small gap remains.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents tag_id, tag, title, and confirm_token. The description adds only general context about the confirmation token and the global rename effect, not new parameter-level detail, so it stays at the baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Changes a tag’s name or display title', and immediately distinguishes the tool from sibling tag tools such as list_tags, search_tags, and delete_tag by naming the update action. It also adds the global scope across pages, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 makes clear this is the action to use when renaming a tag, and explains the all-pages effect that an agent should consider before calling it. It does not explicitly name an alternative or a when-not-to-use case, but the sibling set has no other tag-renaming tool, so the context is sufficient.

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