rename_bone

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true), but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It doesn't mention potential side effects like breaking references, whether the armature must be selected, or what happens if the new name already exists. For a destructive operation, this is minimal transparency beyond the annotation.

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, short sentence with no wasted words or redundancy. It is front-loaded and direct. However, its extreme brevity veers into under-specification; while concise, it could easily add a bit more useful information without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has three required parameters, no parameter descriptions, and only a basic destructive annotation, the description is far from complete. There is no mention of how to use the tool, what the output might look like, or any warnings. Even though an output schema exists, the description fails to provide essential operational context.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It only says 'rename bone' without explaining the required parameters (armature_name, bone_name, new_name). An agent cannot infer what each parameter means or how they relate to the operation.

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 'Ganti nama tulang' clearly states the action (rename) and resource (bone), which is a specific verb+resource pair. While it implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_bone and remove_bone by the verb 'rename', it doesn't explicitly mention the armature context or differentiate itself further.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the bone must exist), and no context about how it fits into the broader workflow. It is a bare command without any usage instructions.

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