Rename components by pattern

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

The annotations already communicate that this is destructive (destructiveHint=true), so the description does not need to restate that. It adds some context about regex/capture groups but does not detail side effects, safety preview via dry_run, or what happens to the file.

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 focused sentence with one illustrative example. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 full parameter coverage and a destructiveHint annotation, the essential calling context is present. It could mention the optional dry_run affordance or return behavior, but the schema already covers dry_run and no output schema is provided.

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?

All parameters are already described in the input schema, so the description has less burden here. It reinforces the regex replacement syntax with a concrete example but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource ('multiple components in a library') with a clear mechanism ('regex pattern matching'). The capture-group example distinguishes it from single-component rename operations and communicates a distinct scope.

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?

It clearly frames the tool for bulk/pattern-based renaming and shows an example transformation, which implies when it applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as rename_component or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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