lib_rename_footprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the failure modes, states that the operation only marks the .PcbLib dirty rather than writing, and directs verification after saving. It omits whether renames propagate to linked footprints/components or what happens if the library is read-only or locked.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource, then the mutation semantics, then Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place; the only mild redundancy is restating the return shape when an output schema already exists.

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 3-parameter mutation with no annotations, the definition covers error conditions, side effects, and the save/verify workflow, so an agent can call it correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior (propagation to linked components, locked library) which a caller might want.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all three parameters are explained, including the non-obvious default that library_path falls back to the focused library. Only the string format/constraints for library_path are left unstated.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource plus scope: 'Rename a footprint in a PCB library (.PcbLib)'. That distinguishes it from lib_rename_component and lib_batch_rename by resource type, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It sets clear preconditions (footprint must exist, new_name must not already exist) and prescribes the follow-up workflow ('Call app_save_all to flush, and check what it reports actually reached disk'). It does not name alternative tools such as lib_batch_rename for multi-rename scenarios.

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