rename_layer

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the full burden. It only states the renaming action and the specific name attribute ('lyr.name'), but does not disclose side effects (e.g., updates in other map elements), authoritative requirements, or behavior when the new name already exists.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action. No redundant wording; every part earns its place.

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 rename operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and missing parameter explanations, the agent may lack confidence about required inputs. Output schema is present, so return values need not be described.

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% per context, meaning the input schema lacks parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions only 'layer name' (related to the 'layer_name' parameter) but fails to explain 'new_name', 'aprx_path', 'map_name', or 'save'. This leaves ambiguity about how parameters relate to the operation.

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 a layer as shown in the Contents pane (lyr.name).' It specifies the verb (rename) and resource (layer), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'rename_dataset' which renames a dataset.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., 'rename_dataset' for datasets, or other layer manipulation tools). The description is purely declarative without context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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