rename_struct_member

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the low bar is set. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it explains the VarGuid-stability resolution, the already_named success case, and the specific failure conditions for unknown members and name collisions.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by idempotency and error semantics, then a return-shape line. It is dense and mostly earns its space, though the internal C++ path reference (FStructureEditorUtils::RenameVariable) is arguably more implementation detail than an agent needs.

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, but the description explicitly enumerates the return fields. It also covers all three required parameters, error conditions, and idempotent behavior, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying that member_name is resolved via its current display name to a stable VarGuid, which adds semantic meaning not present in the brief schema descriptions.

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 (member of a user-defined struct), plus the mechanism (display name resolved to stable VarGuid). It even names the related internal path (add_struct_member) so the agent understands the operation's nature without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear operational context: renaming to the same name is an idempotent no-op success (already_named), and unknown members or name collisions produce honest errors. It stops short of naming sibling rename tools (e.g. rename_bp_variable) as alternatives, so it is clear-context but not full routing guidance.

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