rename_sketch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutating operation ('rename') but does not explain side effects on references, whether the change persists, error behavior for invalid sketch_ref, or any permission/state requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the key selection parameter, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 3-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description only covers purpose and sketch_ref, leaving significant gaps around required context (document_id), defaults, return behavior, and operational consequences. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in a real workflow.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only clarifies sketch_ref ('selected by sketch_ref'). It does not explain what name represents, the role of document_id, the relationship between sketch_ref and document_id, or why all parameters are optional with defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw 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 states the operation: 'Rename an existing sketch' and specifies the selection mechanism ('selected by sketch_ref'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_sketch_entity, update_sketch_entity_geometry, and list_sketches without requiring the agent to inspect 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as an open document or a valid sketch_ref. There are no exclusions or conditional routing hints, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and purpose.

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