batch_rename

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It lists rename modes but does not disclose effects such as name overwrites, sequence ordering for numbering, or that find/replace requires both parameters to work together. Behavioral outcomes are only partially disclosed.

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 entire description is one short sentence that front-loads the purpose ('批量重命名') and then lists the four modes after a colon. There is no filler or redundancy, making it maximally efficient.

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?

With six parameters, one required, no output schema, and no annotations, the tool is moderately complex, but the description only provides the high-level purpose and mode list. It omits operational details the agent needs to invoke correctly, such as mode interactions, find/replace pairing requirements, and the target `objects` format. This leaves the description thin for reliable autonomous use.

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 coverage is 0% since no property descriptions exist, so the description must map parameters to meaning. It does map prefix→前缀, suffix→后缀, find/replace→查找替换, and numbering→编号, giving functional roles. However, it does not clarify the `objects` parameter's accepted forms (array/object/string), the required pairing of find and replace, or how modes combine.

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 states the verb '批量重命名' (batch rename) and enumerates its modes—prefix, suffix, find/replace, numbering—making the action and capabilities clear. The 'batch' wording distinguishes it from the singular rename_object sibling. The target resource (objects) is implied rather than named explicitly, which is a minor gap.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the singular rename_object or the other batch_* siblings. The 'batch' prefix implies multi-object use, but nothing states the selection criteria or excludes single-object scenarios. This leaves the agent to infer the boundary.

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