rename_layer

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and only discloses the return shape {old_name, new_name}. It says nothing about failure modes when the named layer does not exist, what happens if neither old_name nor layer_index is supplied, whether layers in non-active images are reachable, or whether the rename is undoable.

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 definition is short, front-loaded with the action, and organized as a compact parameter list plus a return line. No sentence is wasted, though the bare list format gives up the chance to state the addressing rule in one clarifying clause.

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 four-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value, which is close to sufficient. Given zero annotation coverage, it should still say what happens on a failed lookup and how the layer addressing resolves, since an agent cannot infer that from the schema.

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 carry parameter meaning and it largely does: all four parameters are described, and crucially it explains that layer_index is an alternative addressing mechanism to old_name, which is not expressed anywhere in the schema. It still omits whether the two are mutually exclusive or what the precedence is if both are given.

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?

"Rename a layer" gives a specific verb and resource, so the agent knows exactly what mutation is performed. It does not differentiate from the nearby sibling set_layer_properties, which could plausibly also change a layer name, leaving slight ambiguity about which to pick.

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 statement of when to use this versus set_layer_properties, no prerequisites (e.g. an active image must be selected), and no guidance on which of old_name versus layer_index to prefer. The parameter notes hint at addressing modes but stop short of usage context.

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