rename_asset

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Rename or move' implies mutation but provides no details about side effects, such as whether references are updated, whether paths must be within the same directory, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single short sentence, which is efficient, but it is under-specified. It does not mention path handling, behavior on failure, or relationship to siblings. It is not as empty as a pure tautology, but it scores lower than a well-structured description that includes tradeoffs.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate. It does not explain what happens to the asset's references, whether both paths must exist, or the meaning of failure. The presence of many asset-related sibling tools increases the need for contextual differentiation, which is absent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('Current asset path' and 'New asset path'), so the schema already conveys the meaning. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb and resource: 'Rename or move an asset.' This is clear but does not differentiate from sibling tools like duplicate_asset or delete_asset. It lacks any scoping details (e.g., what counts as a move vs. rename) that would help an agent choose this tool over others.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with sibling tools like duplicate_asset or delete_asset. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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