rename_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a rename operation but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the new name conflicts with existing objects, whether the operation is reversible, or any rate limits. The return format is documented, but behavioral aspects like error conditions or side effects are missing.

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 well-structured with purpose statement, parameter explanations, return format, and example. Every section adds value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the example more tightly, but overall it's efficiently organized with no redundant information.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an adequate job explaining the basic operation and return format. However, it lacks important context about error conditions, naming constraints, and how this interacts with other scene operations. The example helps, but more behavioral context would be needed for robust usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by clearly explaining both parameters: 'object_name' as the current name of an existing object, and 'new_name' as the desired new name. The example call further clarifies usage. This provides complete semantic understanding beyond the bare schema.

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 the specific action ('重命名' - rename) and target resource ('3ds Max 场景中的指定物体' - specified object in 3ds Max scene). It distinguishes from siblings like 'clone_object' or 'delete_object' by focusing specifically on renaming existing objects rather than creating, modifying properties, or deleting them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions the object must exist in the scene, it doesn't explain when renaming is appropriate versus using other object manipulation tools like 'set_object_property' or 'clone_object' with renaming. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond the object existence.

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