Rename a component

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

Below the destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false annotations, the description adds meaningful context: the operation is atomic, and it preserves all primitives and properties while changing only the name. This goes beyond the flat 'destructive' annotation and reassures the agent about scope of 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?

Two front-loaded sentences earn their place: the first states the action and scope; the second adds atomicity/preservation guarantees and a usage comparison. Nothing is repetitive or extraneous.

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?

For a mutation tool with destructiveHint=true and no output schema, the definition covers the core call semantics: what changes, what is preserved, and the safer dry-run validate path exists in the schema. A minor gap is not disclosing failure cases (e.g., old_name not found or new_name colliding), but these are not required for correct invocation.

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 100% — the input schema fully documents filepath, old_name, new_name, and dry_run. The description introduces no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Rename'), a specific resource ('a component within an Altium library file'), and the file scope (.PcbLib/.SchLib implied). It also differentiates itself from the copy+delete workflow, making it distinguishable from the 30+ sibling tools without opening the schema.

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 explicitly says 'More efficient than copy + delete for simple renames,' which routes the agent away from a close sibling workflow toward this tool. However, it does not address adjacent alternatives like bulk_rename or update_component, so the guidance is clear but not a complete when-to-use/when-not-to-use map.

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