rename_session_object

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

Annotations only mark readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the description carries a heavier burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context: the dual plan/execute nature and the Return-track naming behavior (raw labels, Live prefixes bus letter). This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it does not discuss reversibility or 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and targets; the second provides a targeted behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has 8 parameters and a dry-run/confirmation protocol, but the schema richly documents this. The description's brief mention of 'Plan or rename' plus the Return-label nuance, combined with schema details, gives a near-complete picture. It lacks an explicit step-by-step workflow statement, but the schema fills that gap.

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 88%, so the schema already documents parameters like dryRun, confirmationToken, and targetType. The description adds the Return-track bus-letter detail, which is partially reflected in the schema's name parameter description. Overall it provides modest added meaning, landing at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('Plan or rename') along with a clear list of target resources (track, Return Track, scene, Session clip). This explicitly differentiates it from sibling rename tools like rename_arrangement_cue_point and rename_rack_chain by scoping it to session objects.

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 by listing target types and mentioning the 'Plan or rename' dual mode, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or exclude cases (e.g., arrangement clips). The Return-track labeling note offers a specific usage hint, but no direct alternative routing is provided.

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