rename_node

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is destructive and not read-only. The description adds that it returns the updated node, which is helpful. No contradictions with annotations. Some additional context about error cases or permissions would further improve transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences, with the core action and result in the first sentence and the alternative in the second. No wasted words and optimally front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with full annotations and schema coverage, the description covers the main functionality and alternatives. It lacks mention of prerequisites like node existence, but given the destructive annotation, completeness is sufficient.

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 100%, but the description adds significant extra meaning for the 'name' parameter, explaining Figma's slash-separated path notation. This goes beyond the schema description and aids correct parameter usage.

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 clearly states the action 'rename a single node by ID' and mentions the return value. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'batch_rename_nodes' by name, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises using 'batch_rename_nodes' for multiple nodes or find/replace patterns, providing good guidance on alternative usage. However, it does not mention other relevant siblings like 'rename_page', which could be confused.

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