rename_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., references that may break), required permissions, or whether the rename is reversible. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap, leaving the agent to infer safety and impact.

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 that is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified: while it communicates the basic action, it omits essential context about parameters and behavior, making it less effective than a slightly longer description that would benefit the agent.

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 is simple with 2 parameters and no output schema, but the description provides almost no information to guide correct invocation. It lacks details on what 'path' means, what the new name should look like, or any constraints. For a rename operation in a complex 3D environment, this is insufficiently complete to ensure correct usage.

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 mention either parameter ('path' or 'new_name'). The agent cannot infer what values to supply or how they relate to the operation, making this a serious deficiency. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 a clear resource ('a node'), which states the tool's function unambiguously. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'move_node' or 'copy_node' by mentioning scope or context, so it lacks the distinguishing detail that would merit a 5.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the action without contextualizing its use case relative to other node operations.

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