rename_collection_param

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it preserves the parameter Id (critical since material graphs reference it), persists the change ('and save it'), and documents two failure modes (name collision refusal, missing-parameter error). Missing only things like undo/transaction behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a return shape, front-loaded with the core action and Id preservation before the failure conditions. Every sentence earns its place, and the return line is not redundant because there is no output schema.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the action, the Id-preservation semantics, persistence, both failure modes, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 meaning beyond the schema: it ties param_name to an existence requirement in the selected array and restates the param_type defaulting to scalar. That constraint-based framing is genuinely additive over the schema field docs.

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), a specific resource (one parameter of a Material Parameter Collection asset), and a distinguishing scope constraint (keeping its Id, then saving). An agent can distinguish this from add_collection_scalar_param/remove_collection_param and from the many unrelated rename_* siblings 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 clear preconditions that frame when the tool applies: new_name must not collide in the same array, and param_name must exist in the array selected by param_type. It does not name an alternative (e.g., remove+add, or regenerate_collection_param_id), so 4 rather than 5.

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