mod_rename

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the behavioral consequence that the new name becomes the handle for later mod_get_params references, but it does not disclose side effects such as breaking existing references to the old name. This is modest added value, consistent with the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence per language (Chinese and English), stating the action and purpose with zero fluff. The bilingual duplication is mildly redundant but each version earns its place for audience coverage, and the key action verb appears 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 3-parameter tool, the description plus 100% schema coverage and annotations cover the call correctly. The main gap is the undisclosed impact on existing references to the old modifier name, which is relevant for a destructiveHint=true operation. Adequate but not complete.

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 each parameter documented bilingually: modifier accepts name/class/index, name is the new name, and objects can be omitted to use the current selection. The description contributes no parameter detail beyond this, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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 states a specific verb ('Rename'), a specific resource ('a modifier on an object'), and the motivating purpose ('so it can later be referenced by name in mod_get_params'). It is easily distinguished from siblings rename_object and mat_rename because it names the modifier as the target rather than an object or material.

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 implies when to use the tool via its stated purpose (when you need to reference a modifier by name in commands like mod_get_params), which gives useful context. However, it provides no explicit when-not guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives, leaving sibling differentiation to the naming convention alone.

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