cityjson_attribute_renameRename an attribute across all CityObjects in a CityJSON dataset, applying the change consistently.
Rename an attribute across CityObjects with cjio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_name | Yes | ||
| old_name | Yes | ||
| dataset_id | Yes | Dataset handle returned by cityjson_import, cityjson_open, cityjson_import_text, or another transformation tool. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states that renaming happens across CityObjects, but does not disclose whether the operation mutates in place, whether changes need to be saved, what happens if old_name is missing or new_name already exists, or any other side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant detail. Every word contributes to identifying the action, scope, and implementation context.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return value, whether the dataset handle is updated or returned, whether persistence is required via cityjson_save, or how collisions are handled. These are important for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a multi-step workflow.
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 33%, with dataset_id documented but old_name and new_name left to their property names. The description 'Rename an attribute across CityObjects' helps map old_name and new_name to attribute names and clarifies scope, but it does not add constraints like uniqueness, existence requirements, or name validity rules. It partially compensates for the schema gap.
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 names a specific verb ('Rename'), a concrete resource ('an attribute'), and a clear scope ('across CityObjects'), which distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like cityjson_attribute_remove. Despite the title being similar, the description adds operational specificity.
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?
It implies the tool should be used when renaming an attribute across CityObjects, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as cityjson_attribute_remove, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is present but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.