Rename an imported STL or OBJ reference mesh inside the Plasticity document history to keep scene objects clearly labeled.
Rename one current imported STL/OBJ reference mesh through Plasticity document history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| intent | No | ||
| revision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds 'through Plasticity document history,' signaling the rename is an undoable history operation, which is useful context, but it does not state permission requirements or what exactly changes.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the operation and target are stated immediately.
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?
For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description should carry more load (e.g., id/revision semantics for targeting the current mesh). It leaves the parameter contract almost entirely unexplained.
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% for 4 parameters (id, name, intent, revision). The description does not clarify any of them; 'one current ... mesh' vaguely gestures at id/revision but gives no meaning for id, intent, or the concurrency role of revision.
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 (one imported STL/OBJ reference mesh), with a scoping qualifier ('one current'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from plasticity_move_reference_meshes, scale, rotate, and delete, but does not name the generic plasticity_rename sibling it is not.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement. The agent can infer it is the renaming operation for reference meshes, but there is no guidance on alternatives or required state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.