Rename multiple Blender objects at once by providing a list of old and new name pairs, simplifying bulk renaming tasks.
Rename multiple objects in one call.
Each entry: {"old": "OldName", "new": "NewName"}
Args: renames: List of rename dicts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| renames | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core action and gives the exact input format, but it does not disclose behavior around missing old names, duplicate new names, or whether renaming is atomic. For a simple rename operation this is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short example, and a minimal args listing. Every part earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter batch operation, the description gives enough information to make a correct common invocation: provide a list of {old, new} dicts. However, it omits edge-case behavior and naming constraints that could matter when objects share names or don't exist, so it is not fully complete.
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 only defines renames as an array of generic objects, providing 0% semantic coverage. The description compensates by specifying the expected dict shape with 'old' and 'new' keys and giving a concrete example. It does not formally define what 'old' and 'new' refer to, but the example and tool purpose make this reasonably clear.
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, 'Rename', and a clear resource, 'multiple objects', and explicitly says 'in one call' to convey batch behavior. This distinguishes it from single-object rename tools like rename_object and from other batch_* siblings. The example entry makes the purpose even more concrete.
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 phrase 'Rename multiple objects in one call' clearly establishes when to use the tool: when several objects need renaming at once. It doesn't explicitly name rename_object as the single-object alternative or state when not to use batch_rename, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer the correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.