rename_node

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'undoable,' a behavioral trait not captured in annotations, clarifying that the mutation is reversible. 'In the open scene' further scopes the operation. This provides valuable context beyond the structured fields.

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 one sentence, efficiently conveying the purpose and a key behavioral trait. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant 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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it does, where (open scene), and a behavioral note (undoable). The missing parameter details are a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 does not explain the parameters 'target' and 'name.' While their names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no explicit semantics or usage details. It relies entirely on the parameter names, which is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a node in the open scene.' It identifies the verb (rename), resource (node), and scope (open scene), distinguishing it from sibling tools like move_node or delete_node. The 'undoable' qualifier adds specificity without ambiguity.

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 context 'in the open scene' implies when to use the tool, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given. It does not mention when not to use it or compare to similar operations like reparent_node or duplicate_node. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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