rename

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Rename an entity' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether the rename is reversible, what happens to references to the old name, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise with just three words ('Rename an entity'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and target, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what types of entities can be renamed, the effect of the rename, error conditions, or return values. With many sibling tools that handle specific entities, this lack of context makes it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('id' as 'Entity identifier' and 'name' as 'New name'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid entity ID or name format. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Rename an entity' clearly states the verb (rename) and resource (entity), but it's vague about what type of entity is being renamed. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'updateMaterials' or 'updateMeshs' which might also rename specific entity types. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that update specific entity types (e.g., updateMaterials, updateMeshs), the description doesn't indicate whether this is a general-purpose rename tool or if it applies to specific entities. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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