rename_object

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

The description discloses a specific behavioral trait: Blender appends .001 if the name is taken. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention the optional rename_data parameter or its effect on the data block, nor any side effects, reversibility, or permissions. This is limited transparency beyond the single conflict-resolution detail.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and adds a relevant behavioral note. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is efficient 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 rename tool, the description is minimal. It omits the optional rename_data parameter and its implications, and with no output schema or annotations, there is no additional context to fill the gap. An agent might not realize that renaming can also affect the mesh datablock, which is significant for a Blender context. The description is incomplete for a tool with no safety annotations.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only rename_data has a description). The tool description does not explain the 'name' or 'new_name' parameters, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying these parameters, but it does not, resulting in weak parameter semantics.

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 tool's purpose: renaming an object. It uses a specific verb (rename) and resource (object), and the additional note about Blender appending .001 provides useful context that distinguishes it from any potential confusion. Among the sibling tools, there is no other rename operation, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 the tool is for renaming objects, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any conditions or exclusions. While there are no direct alternatives in the sibling list, the lack of explicit usage guidance leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context. This is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation.

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