node_rename

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Rename a node', which is obvious, and mentions return of success/error, but omits side effects (e.g., impact on references, signals, undo capabilities). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: one line for the action, one for category, then a focused list of args. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

While the description covers basic parameters and returns, it lacks preconditions (e.g., node must exist, scene must be loaded), potential errors, or side effects. For a simple rename tool, this might be acceptable, but given no annotations or output schema details, it feels slightly incomplete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description lists each parameter with clear, explanatory text and an example for node_path. It adds meaning beyond the schema, although some constraints (e.g., new_name format) are not detailed.

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 explicitly states 'Rename a node in a scene', clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like node_add, node_delete, node_duplicate, node_reparent, and node_set_property, each of which implies 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. For instance, it does not specify whether the scene must be open or if the node must exist. The description solely states the action without contextual usage advice.

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