blender_rename_object

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

Annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already provide the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral detail, such as what happens if the old name isn't found or whether the rename affects references. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it doesn't enrich them beyond the obvious.

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 sentence with an illustrative example. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the action then the example. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 2-parameter rename tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core action and parameter semantics. Missing details like failure behaviors are not critical for this simple operation, and the output schema handles return values.

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 0%, but the example 'Cylinder.001' -> 'hinge_barrel' clearly maps old_name to the current name and new_name to the replacement, adding meaning beyond the property titles. However, constraints like name uniqueness or valid character sets are not mentioned.

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 action ('Rename') and the target ('an object'), with a concrete example ('Cylinder.001' -> 'hinge_barrel') that makes the purpose unmistakable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on rendering, import/export, or modeling.

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 example implies the tool is used when an object's name needs to be changed, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention prerequisites like the object needing to exist. It's adequate for a simple tool but lacks proactive guidance.

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