blender_rename_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Plan or rename' but does not explain what 'plan' means, whether actual renaming is destructive, how checkpoints work, or any side effects. This leaves the agent without essential safety information 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 sentence with clear verb-object structure and no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters including a nested object and a dual-mode behavior, yet the description is minimal. It lacks guidance on required inputs, the meaning of 'plan' vs. 'rename', and the effects of boolean flags. With no output schema or annotations, this under-specification leaves a critical gap in understanding the tool's workflow.

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 only 33% (only 'mapping' is described). The description adds meaning for mapping by explaining the target as 'stable game-facing clip names', but it completely omits the roles of 'dry_run' and 'create_checkpoint'. The agent cannot infer their semantics from the description.

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 identifies the resource 'Blender actions', clearly stating the goal: 'to stable game-facing clip names'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_import_asset or blender_list_objects, which handle different operations.

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 'Plan or rename' implies a dual mode of operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use planning vs. executing or provide alternatives. There is no clear context for when this tool should be chosen over other Blender tools, though the purpose itself strongly implies its use case.

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