ue_rename_asset

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

The description mentions that references are updated, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not detail error handling, consequences of invalid paths, or undo behavior. With no annotations, more transparency would be better.

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 concise: one sentence plus a brief parameter list with examples. Every part is essential and well-structured.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter format. It lacks mention of return value or failure modes, but is still reasonably complete.

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 compensates by providing examples for both parameters, indicating the expected format (e.g., '/Game/Imported/SM_rock'). This adds significant meaning beyond bare property names.

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 moves or renames an asset while updating references, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ue_delete_asset and ue_duplicate_asset.

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?

Usage is implied (use when needing to move/rename with reference updates), but the description lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No comparison to other asset tools.

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