rename_curve_table_row

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: UCurveTable::RenameRow silently no-ops when the source is missing or the target name already exists, and those conditions surface as boolean flags rather than errors. That is a non-obvious behavior an agent would otherwise misread. It does not cover whether the asset is persisted afterward.

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-loaded with the action, then the no-op caveat, then a compact returns field list. With no output schema the return enumeration earns its space, though the inline key list is somewhat dense and could be trimmed.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, including the flags (source_existed, target_existed, renamed) that resolve the no-op ambiguity. A mutation tool with full schema coverage is reasonably well served, though it doesn't say whether the row rename is saved to the asset or how to verify success beyond the flags.

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 all three parameters (curve_table_path, row_name, new_row_name) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the row-as-curve concept and adds no format or path syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 with the concrete type qualifier: 'Rename a row (curve) in a UCurveTable.' Combined with the param names it clearly distinguishes itself from sibling renames on other table types (e.g. rename_data_table_row, rename_anim_curve).

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?

The description clarifies edge-case behavior (no-op on missing source or existing target) which implicitly frames when the call is meaningful, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite (e.g. the row must be added first via add_curve_table_row). Usage is implied rather than specified.

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