Rename a timeline layer by setting a display label or clearing it with null; the change is recorded and reversible.
Rename a layer: label, or null to clear it. One recorded edit. Times are move_layers (start) and trim_layer (one edge); enabled / locked are set_layer_flags; kind-specific params are update_layer_params.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes | Display name; null clears it. | |
| layer_id | Yes | Layer id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover idempotence, lack of destructiveness, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that by stating that the operation produces one recorded edit and that a null label clears the value. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 main action and null behavior are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the routing information is compact. The second sentence is slightly compressed but still useful, and there is no unnecessary filler.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, and alternative routing sufficiently. No output schema exists, so the absence of return-value explanation is not a material 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both layer_id and label, including that null clears the display name. The description repeats the null-clearing behavior but adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 via its label, with null clearing it. It also explicitly separates related operations that belong to sibling tools such as set_layer_flags, update_layer_params, move_layers, and trim_layer, making the tool distinguishable without opening schemas.
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?
It clearly assigns label changes to this tool and routes times, enabled/locked flags, and kind-specific parameters to named sibling tools. This gives explicit when-to-use and when-to-use-alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.