bulk_rename_assets

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true/readOnly=false/idempotent=false; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: PIE guard, readonly_roots enforcement, the CDO-referenced case that silently auto-cancels the engine batch (would_block_on_modal), and the fact that referencer packages can be left DIRTY because PerformAssetRename discards FailedPackages unless source control is connected. This is exactly the kind of beyond-annotation disclosure the dimension rewards.

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?

Front-loads the core action (rename/move multiple assets in one batch) before the guard and failure-mode detail, so the key fact is not buried. It is dense and leans on engine internals (IAssetTools::RenameAssets, PerformAssetRename) that could be trimmed, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the return object fields, plus guards, modal-blocking pre-detection, and the dirty-referencer caveat. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: readonly_roots applies to BOTH source and destination, and a false allow_cdo_referenced causes the whole batch to refuse rather than silently no-op, which clarifies the guard's consequence. It goes past the schema's terse parameter blurbs without fully re-explaining every default.

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+scope: rename/move MULTIPLE assets in one IAssetTools::RenameAssets batch, which cleanly distinguishes it from the single-asset rename_asset/move_asset siblings. It also specifies per-item disk verification instead of the batch bool, so the agent knows exactly what operation it performs.

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 strong when-it-refuses guidance: refuses while PIE is active, refuses readonly_roots on both source and destination, and refuses on native-CDO references unless allow_cdo_referenced. It does not explicitly name rename_asset/move_asset as the single-item alternative, so it stops short of the full when-to-use-which routing of a 5.

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