rename_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that UE5 automatically fixes references, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose whether the operation is destructive (e.g., old path removed) or any permission requirements.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the action and includes only essential information without unnecessary 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 rename/move tool with two params and an output schema (not detailed), the description covers the basic purpose and a behavioral note. However, it lacks details on whether the operation copies or truly moves, or what the output schema returns.

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 0%, and the description only implies the purpose of source_path and dest_path without specifying path formats (e.g., relative vs absolute). It adds minimal meaning beyond the param names.

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 or move) and resource (asset) with a specific verb. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rename_data_table_row by being generic for assets. The note about UE5 auto-fixing references adds context.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like duplicate_asset or delete_asset. The note about auto-fix references implies safe usage, but no when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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