Rename Layout

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint=false annotation by explicitly stating that entity handles are unaffected during the rename. This is useful behavioral context, as it tells the agent that the operation has no side effects on drawing entities. The annotation already signals non-destructiveness, but the description adds a more specific guarantee about what remains unchanged.

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 sentences with no filler or repetition of schema details. The core action is front-loaded, and the extra behavioral note about entity handles earns its place by being genuinely informative. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 two-parameter rename operation, the description plus a fully documented schema and an output schema provide everything an agent needs. The old_name is identified as an existing layout tab name, the new_name constraints are in the schema, and the lack of side effects on entity handles is disclosed. No critical context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (old_name and new_name) are already fully documented in the input schema with their constraints. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond calling the layout a 'paper-space layout,' which is a minor clarification. With the schema carrying the parameter details, 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 states a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('a paper-space layout'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes this from the many sibling layout tools like layout_create, layout_delete, and layout_copy by focusing on renaming an existing layout. The added detail that entity handles are unaffected further clarifies the scope.

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 an existing paper-space layout, which is the natural use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, such as not being usable for model space. Given the large sibling set, some explicit guidance about when a rename is appropriate versus other layout operations would help.

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