rename_material

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation, so the description does not need to carry the full safety burden. It adds a useful behavioral constraint that the target is a copy created by the bridge, but it does not explain permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond that.

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 short sentence with no structural waste, but it is too terse for a mutation tool with two required parameters. The brevity reflects under-specification rather than appropriately sized conciseness.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover basic safety, the description does not give enough context to confidently select this tool among many sibling material tools. The meaning of "copie créée par le pont" is left unexplained, and the required parameters are not clarified.

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 for the two undocumented parameters. It vaguely implies renaming a copy, but never identifies the material parameter, the new_name parameter, accepted formats, or constraints. This is far from sufficient parameter guidance.

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 gives a specific verb, "Renomme" (renames), and an object, "une copie créée par le pont" (a copy created by the bridge). However, it does not explicitly say this is a material copy and does not distinguish the tool from sibling material operations such as assign_material or set_material_parameter. The purpose is therefore understandable but vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool is the alternative. It only states the action and leaves all selection context to the agent.

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