rename_niagara_custom_hlsl_pin

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait of rewriting braced references in HLSL source after rename. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on error handling, undo, or effects on connections beyond reference updates.

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 front-load the main action and provide a specific technical detail about reference rewriting. No extraneous words.

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?

Given an output schema exists (but not shown) and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose but lacks parameter definitions and usage context. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 does not individually explain system_path, module_name, old_name, or new_name. While old_name and new_name are implied by the action, the other two parameters are left undefined.

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 a Custom HLSL pin' and the specific resource. It includes the unique detail of updating braced references in HLSL source via whole-word replacement, distinguishing it from sibling rename tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rename_niagara_node_pin or rename_niagara_scratch_pad_module. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for its use.

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