rename_object

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: automatic .001 suffix when the name already exists. Since no annotations are provided, this is valuable transparency. However, it does not mention other behaviors like error cases or scope (e.g., scene-level rename).

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value, but the lack of parameter details slightly reduces effectiveness. It earns a high score for brevity without waste.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic rename operation and one behavioral nuance, but lacks guidance on prerequisites, error handling, and parameter specifics. There are clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description adds no parameter-level semantics. It does not explain what 'name' and 'new_name' refer to, leaving ambiguity for the agent. This is a significant 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 clearly states the action ('Rename') and the resource ('object'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings as no other rename object tool exists in the list.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it include any before/after conditions or prerequisites for invocation.

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