layer_rename

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('changes layer name') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to references to the old name, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative. There's no wasted verbiage, but it's under-specified rather than concise.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or side effects. Given the complexity of layer manipulation in a graphics/design context, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 100%, with both parameters (layerId, newName) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '레이어 이름을 변경합니다' (Changes layer name) states the basic action but is vague about scope and context. It doesn't specify what type of layer (graphic, UI, etc.) or distinguish from similar tools like layer_create, layer_duplicate, or layer_reorder. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for layer manipulation (layer_create, layer_delete, layer_duplicate, etc.), there's no indication of prerequisites, sequencing, or constraints. The description offers no usage context.

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