object_rename

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, telling the agent this is a non-destructive mutation in a closed world. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – nothing about whether renaming affects references, whether names must be unique, or what happens on failure.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is appropriately terse for a simple tool. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficiency, since essential invocation context is absent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a mutation with two undocumented parameters and an ambiguous union-typed 'ref', the description should clarify what is being renamed and how the target is identified; it does not.

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%, so both required parameters (ref and name) are undocumented. The description does not compensate at all: it never explains that 'ref' identifies the target object (accepting integer or string) or that 'name' is the new name. Only the verb itself implies their roles.

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 (object), so an agent can tell it apart from object_delete, object_duplicate, or object_set_attributes by name alone. It does not explicitly differentiate against nearby siblings that also mutate the object, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like object_set_attributes or object_duplicate, nor on prerequisites such as the object existing or the selection state. The agent is left to infer everything from the one-sentence purpose.

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