planner_rename_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that plan_ref may be an exact title, hinting at lookup behavior, but says nothing about duplicate-title ambiguity, permissions, or what is returned after the rename.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the one clarifying detail. No waste.

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 rename tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior for title-based lookup, which is minor but would help correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain plan_ref as 'plan ID or exact title' — the one non-obvious parameter. new_title is self-explanatory, but no constraints (length, uniqueness, empty string) are given.

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+resource ('Rename a Planner plan'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling mutations like planner_delete_plan or planner_rename_bucket. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, but the name and verb make selection straightforward.

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 planner_list_plans (to find the plan) or planner_rename_bucket, and no prerequisites such as needing the plan to exist or permissions. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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