deck_rename

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and non-idempotent, so the main behavioral profile is covered. The description adds the return value ('Returns the new Deck'), which helps, but it does not address what happens when the deck does not exist, permission requirements, or whether renaming is reversible.

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 action and return value. The 'Required: deck_id, name' sentence duplicates the schema's required list and could be dropped, but the overall entry is tight.

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 mutation with a clear return statement and annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete. Missing only edge-case behavior (nonexistent deck, name constraints), which is minor for a rename operation.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description merely restates the two required names without adding format, constraints, or naming rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 an existing deck'), which is unambiguous and clearly differs from deck_create and deck_delete in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the mutation-on-existing-deck scope is clear enough on its own.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus deck_create, deck_delete, or any deck-listing tool, and no prerequisites such as ownership or required permissions. An agent must infer that a deck must already exist.

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