Rename a layer or table in an ArcGIS Pro map's table of contents by specifying its current name and new display name.
Rename a layer in the table of contents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| map_name | No | Map to act on; defaults to the active map. | |
| new_name | Yes | New display name. | |
| layer_name | Yes | Layer or table name as shown by get_layers, or a full dataset path. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Rename' implies mutation but does not disclose whether this changes only the TOC display name or the underlying dataset, whether the operation requires permissions, or whether it can be undone. This is a significant gap 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, though it is under-specified rather than structurally flawed.
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?
The description is complete enough for an agent to know the basic operation, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and a mutation operation, the lack of any behavioral or safety details leaves an important contextual gap.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including map_name, new_name, and layer_name. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; a baseline 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 and resource: 'Rename a layer in the table of contents.' An agent can tell it changes a layer's display name, but the description does not distinguish this operation from sibling tools like move_layer or set_layer_visibility.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. It does not say when to prefer this over other layer-management tools or what conditions are required (e.g., active map, edit session).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.