renumber_elements

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that omitting IDs causes all elements to be renumbered continuously starting from 1. It does not disclose potential side effects on references or what happens with partial ID mappings, but the default behavior is clearly communicated.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the purpose, default behavior, and parameter semantics in just a few sentences. Every part contributes useful information with minimal 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?

The description covers the main operation and default behavior but leaves important calling details unresolved, such as the mapping between element_ids and new_ids and the effect of providing only one list. For a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, this is adequate but not fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by labeling element_ids as original IDs and new_ids as new IDs, and noting both are optional. However, it does not clarify the required relationship between the two lists, such as whether they must be parallel, what happens when only one is provided, or constraints on the new IDs.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Renumber elements') and explains the default behavior when no IDs are provided. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like renumber_nodes and update_element_id by focusing on element IDs and batch renumbering.

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 renumbering element IDs, especially in contrast to renumber_nodes, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over update_element_id or other related tools. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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