Rename Field

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'rename' without disclosing mutability, error behavior, or side effects (e.g., cascade updates). Inadequate 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 sentence, which is concise. However, it omits essential details, crossing from conciseness into under-specification. Minimal words but insufficient information.

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 3-required-param tool with no output schema, the description should clarify return behavior, error cases (e.g., field not found), and any transformations. It does none of these, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions). The tool description adds no meaning beyond parameter names (layer_id, old_name, new_name). Constraints like uniqueness, case sensitivity, or length limits are missing.

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?

Description clearly states the action (rename) and resource (field in a vector layer). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_field and delete_field, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from them beyond the name.

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 on when to use this tool, what prerequisites are needed (e.g., field must exist), or when to avoid it. No comparison to alternatives like field_calculator or update_features.

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