rename_widget

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is known. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the full ripple scope of the mutation (tree membership, variable map, bindings, animation bindings) in one call, plus an explicit return-value enumeration. It omits the PIE refusal behavior, but that is documented in the schema.

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 its scope in the first clause, then a compact return-shape block. The long parenthetical is dense but every element (tree, variable map, bindings, animation bindings) carries distinct information. Slightly verbose, but no wasted sentences for a tool with no 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?

Annotations supply the safety/idempotency profile, the schema fully documents all five parameters including the PIE hazard, and the description covers the otherwise-undocumented return shape since no output schema exists. The main gap is that the PIE prohibition is nowhere in the description body, where an agent scanning prose would most likely look.

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%, so parameters (including the detailed `force` PIE warning and the `blueprint_name` alias) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond a vague reference to the F2 workflow, so the 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') and resource ('a widget in a Widget Blueprint's tree') and enumerates exactly what the operation touches (WidgetTree membership, variable map, bindings, animation bindings). The 'same path as the Designer's F2' analogy makes the scope unmistakable and separates it from asset-level renames like rename_asset or rename_bp_variable.

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 this is the canonical all-in-one rename ('all updated in one call -- the same path as the Designer's F2'), which hints at when to prefer it over hand-editing each sub-object. But it never states a when-to-use condition, an exclusion, or names an alternative sibling. The critical operational constraint (refused during PIE) lives only in the schema's `force` field, not the description.

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