rename_rig_element

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it specifies the exact no-op semantics ({ renamed:false, already_named:true }) and the silent numeric-suffix collision disambiguation surfaced via name_adjusted. It does not explain the destructive/disk-write implications, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core action, then behavioral caveats, then the return shape. Nothing is wasted and the return block earns its space since no output schema exists. Slightly dense but well organized.

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, the explicit return-field list is genuinely useful, and annotations plus schema cover safety and arguments. The only remaining gap is that the description does not itself caution about the PIE/disk-write hazard, leaving that to the schema. Overall complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, including a very detailed force parameter explaining PIE refusal, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema and instead references result fields (renamed, name_adjusted), which is return-value information rather than argument guidance.

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 scope: 'Rename an element in a Control Rig's hierarchy.' This is more precise than a bare rename and separates it from the broader rename family. However it does not explicitly differentiate from near siblings like rename_bone or rename_skeletal_mesh_socket, so the agent must infer which hierarchy applies.

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?

Usage is implied (rename an element) and idempotency is explained, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives named against the many other rename_* siblings. The critical operational condition (PIE refusal, force override) lives only in the force parameter schema, not in the description itself.

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