mdpa_renumber

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does note the important behavioral trait that references in sub model parts and nodal data are also updated, which is valuable. However, it doesn't state whether the operation is in-place vs. written to 'output', how overwrite interacts with existing files, or whether the original file is preserved or destroyed.

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 tight sentences that front-load the operation and its scope. The parenthetical clarification of reference-following is well placed. No filler.

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?

The core operation is described clearly, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description should disclose in-place vs. output-writing behavior and overwrite semantics; those gaps leave the agent guessing how to invoke it safely.

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 0% — all four parameters (path, start, output, overwrite) are undocumented in the schema. The description only partially compensates: it clarifies 'start' (numbering starts from it, default 1) but says nothing about 'path', 'output' (write destination vs. in-place), or 'overwrite'. Three of four parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 (renumber) and enumerates exactly which entity types (nodes, elements, conditions, geometries) are affected, and the numbering scheme (consecutively from 'start'). This distinguishes it from mesh-editing siblings like mdpa_merge and mdpa_transform.

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 gives a clear usage context — 'Useful after deleting entities or merging meshes' — which ties it to concrete workflows (mdpa_delete_entities, mdpa_merge). It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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