Rename a tree element to give it a stable reference that survives model edits, ensuring you can reliably target it later.
Rename a tree element. Worth doing for anything you will reference later - a stable name survives model edits, unlike a face or edge index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | Reference token of the element to rename. | |
| new_name | Yes | The new name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that a stable name survives model edits, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose naming constraints, error conditions, or any side effects beyond the basic act of renaming.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the practical benefit of renaming. Nothing is redundant.
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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the action, the target, and the strategic reason to use it. It could mention naming rules or behavior on duplicate names, but it is not clearly incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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%: both token and new_name are documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?
The description opens with 'Rename a tree element' — a specific verb, resource, and clear action. It is unambiguously distinct from siblings like catia_delete_element or catia_show_element, and no other sibling tool performs renaming.
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 'Worth doing for anything you will reference later' gives an explicit when-to-use condition. The comparison to 'a face or edge index' signals when an alternative approach is weaker, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or when not to rename.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.