blueprint_component_rename

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool will 'compile and save' after renaming, which is a meaningful side effect. However, it does not address error cases, name uniqueness requirements, or impact on references, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 relatively simple rename tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core action and a key side effect. However, it lacks context about prerequisites, failure modes, or what happens to references, which would enhance completeness but is not strictly required for basic usage.

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 only 33% (only blueprint_path is described). The description does not elaborate on old_name or new_name beyond what the tool name implies, nor does it provide any constraints or valid values. Since coverage is low and the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter details, it falls short.

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 action (rename a component), the target resource (SCS node on a Blueprint), and the follow-up side effects (compile and save). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like blueprint_component_remove and blueprint_node_set_enabled.

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 tool's usage is implied by its name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not mention, for example, when to prefer blueprint_node_move or blueprint_node_set_enabled instead.

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