rename_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'UE auto-creates a redirector at the old name.' This informs the agent about side effects beyond the rename action, though it omits other potential behaviors like error conditions or required saves.

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?

Two sentences, direct and front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 2-parameter tool with good schema coverage, the description covers the purpose and a key behavioral note (redirector). It lacks mention of return value or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly 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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning—'leaf name' reinforces the path scope, but this is already implicit from the schema's 'path' and 'new_name' constraints. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('rename') and the specific resource ('asset's leaf name; folder unchanged'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'move_asset' (which changes folder) and 'bulk_rename_assets' (batch operation).

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 leaf-name changes without folder relocation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bulk_rename_assets for multiple assets) or when not to use it.

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