rename_niagara_node_pin

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It discloses automatic rewriting of braced references for Custom HLSL nodes, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention side effects, requirements (e.g., pin must be dynamic), or whether the operation is destructive.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a key behavioral detail. No superfluous wording.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not help the agent understand how to specify the target pin or node, nor does it describe return values or error conditions. The output schema may mitigate, but the description itself lacks crucial context.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of any of the 7 parameters. It does not clarify node_id, node_class, node_index, module_name, system_path, or how old_name/new_name relate to the pin naming system.

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 verb 'Rename' and the resource 'dynamic pin on any node in a scratch pad graph'. It distinguishes from siblings like rename_niagara_scratch_pad_module and rename_niagara_custom_hlsl_pin by specifying the scope (any node's dynamic pin).

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 renaming dynamic pins but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rename_niagara_custom_hlsl_pin). No 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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