rename_asset

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

The description provides extensive behavioral context beyond annotations: sanitizeAssetName runs on both names, extension cannot change, no overwriting, confirm-gated for in-use files, and missing source is invalid_input. This fully compensates for the lack of annotation detail.

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?

The description is relatively long but well-structured, starting with the main action then detailing constraints. Every sentence adds value, though a bulleted list could improve readability.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and complex behavior (sanitization, overwrite protection, confirm-gating), the description covers all edge cases and expected outcomes comprehensively.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds meaningful context like same extension requirement and sanitization logic, raising the score above baseline.

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 clearly states 'Rename one media file within data/media, renaming its paired .jpg cover sibling to match.' It uses a specific verb (rename) and resource (media file), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_asset' or 'set_cover' by focusing on renaming.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_asset' or 'validate_media'. It implies usage for renaming but lacks comparative guidance, though constraints (no extension change, confirm-gated) indirectly hint at appropriate scenarios.

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