wwise_rename

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the two-step workflow, default transform, and important behaviors like 'verified by read-back' and 'undoable'. It does not cover all aspects (e.g., scope of objects), but covers core behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value. No fluff or repetition. Exemplary conciseness.

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 4 params, no output schema, no annotations, the description is incomplete. Missing explanation of 'types' parameter and the scope of objects affected. While it covers key aspects, these omissions reduce completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains mode, transform (with default), and token. However, the 'types' parameter is not mentioned, leaving a gap. Partial but not complete coverage.

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 ('Batch-rename') and resource ('objects'), explains the transform method with a default example, and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings (no other rename tool). It's comprehensive and unambiguous.

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 details the two-step process (plan then apply) and explains when each mode is used. It does not mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, but the guidance within the tool is clear.

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