Rename a body in CATIA V5 Part.Bodies via its Name COM property; pass new_name and optional old_name, or omit old_name to rename the last body created.
Rename a Body (in Part.Bodies) via the .Name COM property.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_name | Yes | New descriptive name. | |
| old_name | No | Current body name, e.g. 'Body.2'. If omitted, renames the last body created. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds little beyond that. It does not explain what happens on a name collision, whether the rename cascades to references/features built on that body, or why the operation is non-idempotent (omitting old_name depends on creation order). The COM-property note is an implementation detail, not agent-useful behavior.
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?
A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical scope qualifier arrives immediately after the verb.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits prerequisites (active part/document), failure modes (nonexistent body or duplicate name), and side effects. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description leaves meaningful gaps for a write operation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'renames the last body created' fallback for old_name. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Rename) and resource (Body, scoped to Part.Bodies), which is clear and distinct from the sibling catia_rename_feature. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with that sibling, so an agent must infer the body-vs-feature distinction.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. an active document/part must exist), and no reference to the sibling rename tool or list_bodies. The only behavioral hint, that omitting old_name targets the last body created, lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.