Rename any Blender object by specifying its current name and desired new name; get the actual name assigned, which may be auto-incremented if the name is taken.
Rename an object. Returns the actual name assigned (may be auto-incremented).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| new_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0+hardened.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavioral trait: the assigned name may differ from the requested new_name due to auto-incrementing. This goes beyond the schema and is valuable. It does not mention side effects or whether renaming affects references, but for a simple rename this is a reasonable disclosure.
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 with zero waste. The core purpose is stated first, and the behavioral nuance (auto-increment) is appended concisely. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 only two parameters and an output schema (which likely returns the final name), the description covers the essential purpose and a notable behavior. However, it omits any context about object types, error cases, or how renaming interacts with other object operations. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is appropriate—adequate but not comprehensive.
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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not. The parameter names 'name' and 'new_name' are self-explanatory, but the description adds no constraints, format, or relationship between them. This is a significant gap because the description could have clarified that 'name' is the current object name and 'new_name' is the desired name, but it only implies this.
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 a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('object'), and adds the return behavior (actual name may be auto-incremented). It is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools, none of which perform renaming. This is a model of purpose clarity.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, since there is no competing rename tool in the sibling list, the lack of exclusion is acceptable. Still, there is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases, so it earns a mid-range score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.