Rename Node

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

Annotations already convey idempotency and open-world context. The description adds that the tool sets the name to an exact value, implying an overwrite behavior, but does not disclose potential side effects or failure modes. The schema's note on empty names adds context, but it is outside the description.

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: 'Rename a node (sets `name` to an exact value).' It is front-loaded with the action, contains zero filler, and effectively communicates the core function.

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?

The tool is simple with three clearly documented parameters and an output schema present. The description covers the essential action and the schema covers parameter details, so the description is sufficiently complete for this low-complexity operation. Missing explicit usage guidance is the only minor gap.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including a detailed note about the `name` parameter rejecting empty strings. The tool description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema and the exact-value phrase already provide, so the schema carries the burden.

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 states 'Rename a node' with the specific verb 'rename' and resource 'node', and clarifies it sets `name` to an exact value. This unambiguously identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools that manipulate other node properties (e.g., node_set_fill, node_set_stroke).

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 implies usage for renaming nodes but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.

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