rename_niagara_script_parameter

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

No annotations exist, so the description must describe behavior. It only mentions 'in-place across both asset and edit-copy graphs' but omits effects of renaming (e.g., breaking references, permission requirements, what happens if old_name doesn't exist).

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 (one sentence, 13 words) but sacrifices essential detail. It is front-loaded with the action, but every sentence should earn its place; here it is too terse.

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?

With 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema not shown, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to identify the parameter (e.g., module_name, script_path) or the role of direction.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in schema. The description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (old_name, new_name, direction, module_name, script_path, system_path), leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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 specifies the action ('Rename a script parameter') and the scope ('in-place across both asset and edit-copy graphs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add/remove/list script parameters.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., add/remove), no prerequisites or exclusions provided. The agent must infer usage from context.

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