blender_rename_object

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds useful context about the default data-block renaming behavior, which is beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., renaming data blocks may affect references) or whether the operation is reversible.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and the key default behavior. Every word earns its place, and it avoids unnecessary detail.

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 simple rename tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior but leaves gaps. It doesn't specify how to reference the object (name vs. path), what happens if the object doesn't exist, or what the response contains. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not complete.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. The description clarifies the 'rename_data' parameter's default behavior (renames mesh/light/camera data block too), which adds value. However, it doesn't explain the 'object' parameter format (e.g., name vs. path) or the 'response_format' parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 states a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('an object'), and adds a meaningful default behavior: renaming the associated mesh/light/camera data block too. This distinguishes it from generic rename tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies the tool is for renaming objects and optionally their data blocks, which gives some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like blender_execute_python for more complex renaming scenarios. The rename_data parameter is mentioned in the description, which helps clarify the default behavior.

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