rename_skeletal_mesh_morph_target

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it discloses the save side-effect, the specific failure conditions for old_name and new_name, and the subtle case where a failed save still leaves the rename in memory while returning an error. That last detail is exactly the kind of state inconsistency an agent needs to know and is not captured by destructiveHint/idempotentHint.

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 and resource, then immediately the failure semantics, then the return shape. Dense but every sentence carries load; only the explicit Returns line is slightly redundant with a non-existent 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?

Covers the operation, its failure modes, its side-effects (save, in-memory persistence on save failure), and the return payload for a mutation tool with no output schema. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, including the path format and name constraints. The description largely restates the new_name constraint; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (morph target on a skeletal mesh asset), and even names the save side-effect in the first sentence. This distinguishes it cleanly from remove_skeletal_mesh_morph_target, create_skeletal_mesh_morph_target, and get_skeletal_mesh_morph_targets.

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 gives clear preconditions - old_name must be an existing morph target and new_name must not already exist - which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., remove/create), but the failure conditions effectively route the agent.

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