tv_rename_layout

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: it refuses read-only/View Only charts and returns the previous and new name. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent of side effects and safety checks.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The action and scope are front-loaded, followed by a behavioral note and return info. Every sentence 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 rename operation with 4 parameters (1 required) and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It covers the refusal behavior, the return value, and the scope. An agent can call it correctly without missing critical information.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but it reinforces the 'bound tab' concept that relates to the layout parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific action (rename), the resource (layout shown in the bound tab), and distinguishes it from other layout tools like tv_copy_layout and tv_delete_layout. Also notes the refusal condition and return value, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context by specifying the target is the layout in the bound tab, which narrows usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when to avoid this tool, but the context is enough to distinguish from other layout operations.

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