rename_page

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

Adds context beyond the annotations: the optimistic-concurrency contract (expected_version prevents renaming a page changed since read), the blast radius (title only, id and content preserved), and a hard deployment constraint ("unavailable over remote HTTP MCP transport (local stdio only)") that no annotation conveys. The destructiveHint=true flag is conservative rather than contradicted — the description clarifies exactly what is and is not mutated.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying a distinct load: trigger, required-input provenance, effect, and environment/exclusion. The usage constraint is front-loaded before the caveats, so an agent can decide to call or skip it from the first clause.

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 3-required-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger, preconditions, effect on state, the read-modify-write pattern needed to obtain expected_version, and a transport-level availability constraint. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly or route to write_page instead.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance guidance the schema does not: page_id and expected_version should come from "the latest page result," and it explains the purpose of the version field as a race guard. Minor overlap with the schema's own expected_version text keeps it from a 5.

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 page") and immediately bounds the scope ("changes the title only and preserves the page id and content"). It also distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling, write_page, which is a crowded neighborhood of page-mutation tools.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("only when the user explicitly asks to change its title"), an explicit anti-trigger ("Do not call this during distillation, synthesis, or content refresh"), and names the alternative to use instead ("write_page keeps an existing title when refreshing"). Nothing about when-to-use is left to inference.

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