assembly_rename_component

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the non-obvious side effect that occurrence paths embed the component name, that dependent refs break with ENTITY_NOT_FOUND, the exact failure mode for the root component, and the return payload shape.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by a clearly marked WARNING, then return shape, then a compact example. Every block (constraint, side effect, return, example) earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the return structure, error codes, and the downstream ref invalidation an agent could not infer. Nothing needed to invoke or recover from the call is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The worked example ('component="component:Box", name="Case"') does illustrate the ref format and expected emission, but adds only marginal 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rename a component') and its scoping constraint (root component cannot be renamed). The 'component:<name>' ref vocabulary and the occurrence-path discussion separate it from sibling renames such as body_rename or timeline_rename, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear exclusion ('the root component cannot be renamed (INVALID_PARAMS)') and actionable follow-up guidance ('use the returned paths' because old occurrence and proxy refs stop resolving). It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use when a rename is not appropriate.

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