Rename navigator item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds genuine behavior beyond them: the returned shape {ok, id, tree, prefix, name, warning?}, the meaning of `warning` (Archicad kept a different name/ID), and the caveat that an auto-numbered SUBSET's new ID is recomputed on the next Layout Book change. It does not spell out what is overwritten by the rename, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and the minimum-argument rule come first, then output shape, then the warning semantics and the alternatives/caveats. Nothing is filler, though the closing subset-numbering sentence is somewhat long and dense for a rename tool.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description names the return fields and the warning flag, covers the argument requirement, and surfaces the non-obvious durability caveat plus the correct alternative workflow. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (baseline 3). The description goes further by explaining that newId is the prefix shown before the name (e.g. '03', 'АР') and that '' clears it where allowed, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema strings.

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?

States a specific verb (renames) and resource (navigator item), and enumerates what counts as a navigator item (view, View Map folder, layout, subset, viewpoint). It also names the sibling tools (set_layout_settings, create_layout_subset, move_navigator_item) it relates to, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite ('Pass at least one of newName / newId') and routes to alternatives: for sheet numbers of layouts use set_layout_settings {customLayoutNumbering: true}, and for a lasting subset ID use create_layout_subset {customNumbering: true} then move_navigator_item. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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