rename_node

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations (which only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false): it guarantees that properties, children, and connections are preserved. This addresses what is not destroyed and clarifies the non-destructive nature of the rename. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Rename') and followed by a concise behavioral guarantee. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 operation with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers the core purpose and a key behavioral guarantee, though it does not mention edge cases like name collisions or what happens if the node does not exist.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter (projectPath, scenePath, nodePath, newName) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional detail about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Rename' with a clear resource ('a node in a scene file') and explicitly states the scope: 'keeping all properties, children, and connections intact.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like remove_node or reparent_node, which would alter structure.

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 operation is inherently specific, and the phrase 'keeping all properties, children, and connections intact' implies when it is appropriate (when the goal is purely renaming without structural changes). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use set_node_properties to change other attributes' or 'do not use for reparenting.'

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