figma_rename_variable

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the non-destructive preservation of values/settings and the Desktop Bridge requirement, but says nothing about name collisions, invalid IDs, failure modes, or whether the rename 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 purpose, then behavior, then prerequisite. No filler.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, preserved state, and the plugin prerequisite. Only gap is collision/error behavior, which is minor at this complexity.

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 there (including the slashes-for-grouping convention and where to get variableId). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rename an existing Figma variable') and clarifies the effect ('updates the name while preserving all its values and settings'), which implicitly rules out figma_update_variable as the tool for name-only changes. Sibling routing is implied rather than named outright, so not quite a 5.

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 (rename only, preserving values) and the prerequisite 'Requires the Desktop Bridge plugin to be running' is a useful gate, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of figma_update_variable' guidance or when-not-to-use condition.

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