Rename target

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose side effects. It only says 'rename' without noting if it is destructive, whether references are updated, or if replacing an existing name is allowed. This is a mutation with zero behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loads the action. Could be extended with necessary details without being overly long.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits error behaviors, return value, and any special handling for the stage. Without annotations or output schema, an agent has no information about success/failure or edge cases. For a 2-parameter rename, this is borderline but lacks enough context.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention that 'name' identifies the target sprite/stage and 'newName' is the replacement. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no explicit mapping or constraints.

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 'rename' with explicit resource 'sprite (or the stage)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like patch_target or set_sprite. The parenthetical clarifies stage support, adding precision.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like patch_target, or any prerequisites. No mention of whether it applies to selected target or requires explicit name.

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