Rename Field

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the rename affects existing data, requires specific permissions, or is reversible. The agent lacks insight into the tool's operational impact.

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, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without extraneous words or repetition. Every word 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 tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks important context such as that the field must exist, the new name must be unique and valid, and the operation's effect on layer schema. The 3 required parameters and absence of output schema suggest a need for more completeness.

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 adds no meaning beyond the schema's property titles. Although the parameter names are self-explanatory (layer_id, old_name, new_name), the description could clarify constraints like uniqueness of the new name.

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 verb 'rename', resource 'field', and context 'in a vector layer', making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools like 'add_field' and 'delete_field'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions for renaming a field. Sibling tools like 'add_field' and 'delete_field' suggest possible confusion, but no differentiation is offered.

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