bulk_rename_assets

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: each rename leaves a redirector, it is a synthetic bridge-side handler, and it returns per-entry results with aggregate counts. It could also mention error handling behavior (continue_on_error) which is only 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?

The description is four sentences long, providing essential details without unnecessary fluff. It could be slightly more structured, but it remains concise and informative.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, behavior (redirector), result shape, and schema distinction. It is complete enough given no output schema, though it does not detail error partiality which is handled by the schema's continue_on_error parameter.

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?

Although the input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, the description adds value by interpreting what the renames parameter does (per-entry leaf name) and the redirector side effect, enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 renames multiple assets in one call, specifies it uses a list of {path, new_name} objects, and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the schema differs from bulk_delete_assets and bulk_move_assets.

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 explains that each rename leaves a redirector per UE standards and that results mirror the bulk_*_assets convention, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other rename or bulk tools.

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