layout_rename

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds a genuine post-condition — that the tool confirms the same ID now carries the new name — which is useful verification behavior not expressed in the annotations. It does not explain failure/rollback behavior when the rename is rejected.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verification clause is worth keeping. The phrasing 'exact current saved layout' is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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 3-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the basic action and the confirmation step but omits the name constraints, what happens on expected_layout_id mismatch (only in the schema), and permission requirements. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 67%: target_id and expected_layout_id are documented in the schema, while the name parameter carries only min/max length constraints. The description's 'new name' and 'same ID' clauses echo the schema without adding format or semantics beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb (rename) with a specific resource (saved layout) and adds scope ('exact current saved layout'), so an agent can tell it apart from layout_save or layout_copy. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as layout_save or layout_get. The phrase 'exact current saved layout' weakly implies the layout must already exist, but nothing is said about prerequisites, ordering (e.g., list first), or when renaming is preferred over saving under a new name.

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