ue_rename_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of updating references, which is valuable. However, it does not mention potential destructiveness (original path becomes invalid), permissions, or undo capabilities. The added context is moderate.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the action and two lines for parameters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the main action and parameter examples. However, it lacks information about return values, prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist), and potential side effects. The description is mostly complete but has gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides examples for both parameters (e.g., '/Game/Imported/SM_rock' and '/Game/MyGame/Meshes/SM_Roccia'), offering format hints. The Italian translations add some clarity but don't deeply explain constraints or formats beyond the example. This is adequate but not rich.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Sposta o rinomina un asset aggiornando i riferimenti' (Move or rename an asset updating references). This uses a specific verb+resource and differentiates from siblings like ue_delete_asset or ue_duplicate_asset by highlighting reference updates.

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 usage for renaming or moving assets while maintaining references, but it lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or mention of alternatives like ue_duplicate_asset. The context is clear but not formally guided.

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