rename_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states no side effects, no error behavior for an invalid UID, no note on whether renaming a group affects children, and no indication of reversibility.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and selector front-loaded. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions on its two required parameters, the description is too thin. The output schema excuses explaining return values, but the lack of any mutation behavior or failure-mode detail leaves real gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'By UID' does clarify that uid is the selector and 'rename' implies name is the new label, but neither parameter's format, constraints, or collision behavior is described.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Rename a layer or group by UID' tells the agent exactly what the tool mutates and how the target is identified. It is distinguishable from siblings like set_layer_properties or list_layers, though it doesn't explicitly say so.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as set_layer_properties, nor any preconditions (e.g., layer must exist, whether renames are allowed on locked layers). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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