rename_layout

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and "Rename" only implies mutation. It does not say whether the old name is lost or recoverable, whether names must be unique, what errors occur for unknown ids, or what the call returns. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler; the id-provenance hint is packed into a compact parenthetical. Slightly cryptic in its phrasing but nothing is wasted.

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 simple two-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials of what the tool does and where the id comes from. It stops short of describing the effect of the rename, name constraints, or failure behavior, which an agent would still need to guess.

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 0%, so both parameters depend entirely on the description. It clarifies the source of layout_id, which is genuinely helpful, but says nothing about the `name` parameter — whether it is the new name, any length/character/duplication constraints, or whether omitting it is allowed (both are required).

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Rename a layout") and even points to where layout ids originate, so the operation is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like rename_flow or rename_player, though the resource noun does most of that work implicitly.

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 parenthetical "ids from get_score_overview layouts" usefully tells the agent how to obtain the required layout_id, which is real procedural guidance. However, there is no statement of when to use this versus other rename/add tools, no prerequisites or permission context, and no caveats about invalid ids.

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