rename_bone

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint/not idempotent; the description goes further by disclosing the non-propagation side effect (references in meshes/animations are left stale), the exact error-triggering conditions, and that a failed save returns success=false. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 first paragraph is tight and front-loaded. The Returns block is somewhat verbose and partly restates failure flags, but since no output schema exists it earns most of its place; a leaner return summary would be better.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with three fully documented params and no output schema, the description supplies failure modes, side effects, and the return shape, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents old_name, new_name, and skeleton_path. The description only names old_name/new_name in the context of failures, adding no syntax or format beyond what the schema provides — the standard baseline of 3.

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) and resource (a bone in the reference skeleton of a USkeleton asset) plus the persistence behavior (and save it). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like rename_skeletal_mesh_socket, rename_rig_element, or add_bone without opening any schema.

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 explicit failure conditions (old_name not a bone, new_name already taken) and a crucial when-not caveat: skeletal meshes and animations referencing the old name are not updated. However, it does not route the agent to any alternative tool, which limits it below a 5.

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