object-rename

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., name conflicts, renaming all objects with the same name, or what happens if the object is not found).

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, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices informative value for brevity.

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 two-parameter rename tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is underspecified. It does not cover edge cases, expected behavior, or the operational context beyond the bare operation.

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 adds no parameter-level meaning. The property titles 'New object name' and 'Object name' give some hint, but the distinction between them is ambiguous without further context.

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 clearly states the action ('Rename') and the resource ('an object'), matching the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings like object-delete and object-duplicate, though it doesn't specify what type of object or scope is affected.

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 tool instead of alternatives like outliner-collection_rename or object-duplicate. It also lacks prerequisites such as whether the object must exist or if it affects the active object only.

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