Renames a single object in Autodesk 3ds Max and returns both the previous and new names to confirm the change.
重命名一个对象。返回旧名与新名。 [English] Rename one object. Returns old and new name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 原对象名。 | Original object name. | |
| newName | Yes | 新名称。 | New name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful return-value note ('Returns old and new name') that matters because there is no output schema, but it does not disclose side effects such as reference updates or irreversibility. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.
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 two short bilingual sentences with no filler. The operation and return values are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 tool with two required parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the action, the inputs are documented in the schema, and the return values are stated. Minor gaps remain around uniqueness or validation of the new name, and the fact that it targets scene objects is only implicit.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for name and newName. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the concept of old and new names, 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 states a clear verb and resource ('Rename one object') and specifies that it returns old and new names. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling rename tools like mod_rename or mat_rename, but the tool name and 'object' wording make the primary target clear.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as mod_rename and mat_rename exist, but the description does not state that rename_object is for scene objects only, nor does it mention exclusions or preconditions like whether the object must exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.