rename_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It proactively reveals a key behavior: the actual name assigned may be auto-incremented, which is critical for users to understand. This goes beyond simple 'rename' semantics, though it does not cover error cases or edge conditions like invalid names or non-existent objects.

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 that delivers the core purpose and a key behavioral nuance with zero waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects), the description is mostly complete. It mentions the return value and auto-increment behavior, and the output schema provides additional structure. However, it omits potential error scenarios or prerequisites, which would be useful for a fully complete picture.

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 should compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not explicitly define 'name' as the current name or 'new_name' as the desired name beyond what the parameter names imply. The description adds no semantic value to the schema, making the meaning ambiguous for new users.

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'), with a specific verb and object. It also mentions the return behavior, distinguishing it as a rename operation rather than create/delete. No sibling tool covers renaming, so it stands out clearly.

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 implies that this tool is used to rename objects, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like duplicate_object or set_transform, nor any preconditions such as the object needing to exist. It offers clear context but no exclusions or alternatives.

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