rename_node

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

Annotations indicate it is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds valuable context by stating it does not affect a component's name elsewhere or its instances, and discloses the return value { ok, nodeId }.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by alternatives and return value. No wasted words, every sentence 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 simple rename tool with rich annotations and complete schema coverage, the description fully covers scope, side effects, and return format. No significant 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 100%, with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds nuance by clarifying the nodeId refers to a single canvas node and that the rename doesn't propagate to instances, which goes 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 clearly identifies the action ('Rename a single canvas node's layer name'), specifies the resource and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_page and batch_rename_nodes.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'To rename a document page use rename_page; to rename many nodes by pattern use batch_rename_nodes.' This provides clear usage guidance.

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