blender_rename_object

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

The description adds a genuine side-effect disclosure beyond the annotations: after success, the old name no longer resolves. This warns agents that existing references using the old name will break. It does not cover error handling or name conflicts, but the key mutation consequence is made clear.

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, purposeful sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the side effect follows immediately.

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 two-string-parameter rename, the description gives the action, the existing object requirement, and the main post-condition. The lack of output schema and error condition details is not crippling at this complexity, though uniqueness constraints are unaddressed.

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. The 'old name' phrase helps infer that target_name is the current object name and new_name is the replacement, but no naming rules, uniqueness constraints, or validation details are given.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Rename an existing Blender object.' It also clarifies the salient outcome ('The old name stops resolving after success'), which distinguishes renaming from sibling operations like transform or delete.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description never references alternative tools or conditions, so an agent is left to infer when renaming is the right choice from the tool name alone.

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