Rename Component Reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens to downstream references, wires, or nets when an instance name changes, nor whether the schematic file is modified in place.

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?

Three words are not concise so much as under-specified; nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load. The single fragment carries no orientation for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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?

A four-parameter mutation tool with 25% schema coverage, no output schema, and no meaningful description is inadequate on every axis. The agent gets no information about required path formats, rename semantics, failure modes, or the effect on the schematic.

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 only 25% (just workspace_root), so the description must compensate for the undocumented reference, new_reference, and schematic_path parameters. It supplies only the vague hint that reference is an instance name, leaving the relationship between reference and new_reference, and the expected path format, unexplained.

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?

"Rename InstName" does pair a verb with an identifier, but "InstName" is internal jargon that only becomes meaningful via the title, and the description adds no scope or resource clarification beyond the title's restatement. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as set_component_value, set_component_parameters, or set_component_symbol_text, which also mutate a component's identifying attributes.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. the component must already exist in the schematic), and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell from the description when renaming is appropriate versus using set_component_parameters or set_element_model.

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