editor_rename_actor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the rename is recorded in Undo/Redo history and that updated details are returned, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about failure modes (e.g., duplicate name rejection), permission requirements, or whether 'loaded' implies an active scene prerequisite.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the mutation front-loaded and the two behavioral facts (undo history, return of updated details) appended efficiently. No wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and params are fully covered by the schema. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description omits prerequisite conditions (active scene, actor existence) and error behavior, leaving meaningful 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both actorId and name are already documented in the schema, including the non-empty constraint and the GUID source (editor_scene_graph). The description adds no meaning beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Renames a loaded actor') and adds that it goes through the editor Undo/Redo history and returns updated details. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like editor_delete_actor or editor_create_actor, though it does not explicitly contrast with editor_modify_actor, which could plausibly also rename.

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 phrase 'loaded actor' implies the actor must exist in the current scene, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as editor_modify_actor or editor_set_member. Usage is inferable from context rather than stated.

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