rename_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation and gives no information about side effects, reference updates, error handling, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, perfectly concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is front-loaded with the key action. It earns its place.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description offers no additional context. It does not explain how the scene path is resolved, whether the node path is relative to the scene root, or what happens on failure. Critical context for correct usage is missing.

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 schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (scene_path, node_path, new_name), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline 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 clearly states the action (rename), the resource (node), and the context (in a scene). It is a specific, unambiguous imperative. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'editor_rename_node', which likely serves a similar purpose in a different context.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the scene must be open or how this differs from editor_rename_node. The description provides no contextual clues for selection.

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