rename_skeletal_mesh_socket

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the important behavioral detail that it also renames the skeleton twin, which goes beyond structured fields. It doesn't state what happens if old_name doesn't exist or whether collisions are checked.

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 sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second provides the return shape. Every sentence earns its place and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers purpose, the dual-target behavior, and return values (no output schema exists, so this is helpful). For a 3-param mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, this is nearly complete, though it could mention failure modes or collision behavior.

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 all three parameters (skeletal_mesh_path, old_name, new_name) are already documented. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 (rename), resource (socket), and scope (on a skeletal mesh and its skeleton twin), differentiating it from siblings like rename_bone or rename_static_mesh_socket. The parenthetical 'and its skeleton twin' clarifies the dual-target behavior that no sibling matches.

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 implies when to use it (renaming an existing socket on a skeletal mesh) but gives no explicit when-not or alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like remove_skeletal_mesh_socket or set_skeletal_mesh_socket_parent for related operations. Implied usage only.

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