rename_layer

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully state that pixels are unaffected, but it omits other behavioral context such as whether the change is reversible via undo, whether the layer name is the only metadata altered, or any required permissions or prerequisites. A bare minimum is met, but more detail would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no irrelevant information. The clarifying phrase 'without changing its pixels' earns its place by distinguishing the tool from others.

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?

This is a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, given no annotations, it could benefit from noting that the layer_id must reference an existing layer in the current image and that the rename is immediately applied. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with no structured safety metadata.

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 description provides no explanation of the 'name' and 'layer_id' parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and although the parameter names and types are self-explanatory, the description is expected to compensate for the low coverage. It adds no meaning beyond what the input schema already shows.

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 action (rename a layer) and the specific resource (layer), and differentiates from sibling tools by adding 'without changing its pixels.' This distinguishes it from pixel-modifying operations like rotate_image or brightness_contrast, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies the tool should be used when a rename is needed without altering pixel data, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to similar layer operations like duplicate_layer or set_layer_visibility.

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