rename_target

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent operation, so the description's job is lighter. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context by revealing that renaming also propagates to monitors' spriteName fields, which is a non-obvious side effect beyond simple mutation.

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 a single, densely informative sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then adds the key side effect in a compact parenthetical.

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 core purpose and a notable side effect, but with no output schema and no parameter documentation, it is missing guidance on optional parameters like 'confirm' and 'path'. An agent could reasonably infer the required parameters but may not know how to use the optional ones correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters, but it does not. While 'target' and 'name' can be loosely inferred from the tool name, 'path' and especially 'confirm' are left completely unexplained, creating real ambiguity for invocation.

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 ('Rename') and a specific resource ('sprite/device target'), and it adds a distinguishing side effect (monitors' spriteName is updated). This makes the tool's function immediately clear and separates it from the various list/block/script manipulation siblings.

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 intended use is implied by the phrasing: use this when you need to rename a target rather than edit blocks, scripts, or project settings. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternatives to prefer, such as set_block_field for field edits.

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