rename_clips

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses token behavior, auto-generation of uid, and default values. However, it does not mention potential side effects like irreversibility or effects on references.

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?

The description is well-structured with a purpose sentence, token table, example, and parameter list. Each part is useful, though slightly verbose; could be more concise.

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?

Given the complexity of token-based renaming and multiple parameters, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. An output schema exists but is not shown, so completeness is assumed adequate.

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?

The description explains each parameter's purpose (pattern, camera, reel, start_number, uid) and token syntax, adding meaning beyond the schema's type/default. Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well.

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?

The description clearly states 'Rename all clips in the current Media Pool folder using a token pattern,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'rename_clip' (singular clip rename).

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 implicitly guides use via token pattern examples and param defaults, but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives. However, the sibling 'rename_clip' is a clear alternative for single clips.

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