rename_montage_section

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the edit runs in an undo transaction, is saved to disk, that a same-name rename (FName, case-insensitive) succeeds as a no-op with applied=false/saved=false leaving the montage untouched, and that a failed save yields success=false with saved=false and save_error. That is exactly the partial-failure and repeat-call behavior an agent needs for a destructive=true, non-readOnly mutator.

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 verb + resource + keying, then the no-op case, then the failure case, then a compact return shape. Dense but essentially waste-free; the single-line return enumeration is long yet justified since no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation detail on semantics, the description compensates fully: it documents behavior, no-op semantics, error surfacing, and the returned field set (old_name, new_name, section_count, sections, applied, saved, save_error). An agent has everything needed to invoke 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 description coverage is already 100% (montage_path, section_index, new_name all documented, including the zero-based index and get_montage_info pointer). The description only restates zero-based indexing and clarifies that name comparison is FName/case-insensitive, adding marginal value over the schema.

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 precise verb (Rename), the exact resource (FCompositeSection on a UAnimMontage), and the addressing scheme (zero-based section_index), plus that the change is transactional and persisted. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as add_montage_section, delete_montage_section, and set_montage_properties.

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 word 'existing' implies the section must already be present (unlike add_montage_section) and the index-based addressing implies you need the current section list first, but no sibling is named and no explicit when-not condition is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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