Rename Layout

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

The description goes beyond the annotation (destructiveHint=false) by specifying that entity handles are unaffected. This clarifies a potential side-effect concern. It does not elaborate on other behaviors, but for a simple rename operation, this is sufficient context.

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 redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds a key behavioral note. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with only two string parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does and an important non-destructive side-effect. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (old_name and new_name), including validation rules for new_name. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3.

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 function with a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('paper-space layout'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like layout_create or layout_copy by focusing solely on renaming. The additional note about entity handles being unaffected adds important 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 purpose is obvious from the name and description, making it clear when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'to create a layout, use layout_create'). There is no misleading guidance, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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