Rename a layer in Rhino by entering the old and new layer names.
Rename an existing layer.
Args:
old_name: Current layer name.
new_name: New layer name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_name | Yes | ||
| old_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the primary action. It does not mention side effects, error handling, return values, or what happens if the old layer does not exist or the new name is already in use. With no annotations to supplement, behavioral information is minimal.
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 with no unnecessary words. It is highly concise and straightforward.
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 has an output schema and two required parameters, yet the description lacks essential details such as return value, behavior when the old layer does not exist, or whether duplicate new names are allowed. It is only minimally complete for such a simple operation.
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 description does not add any meaning to the parameters beyond their names. Since the schema has no descriptions, the names old_name and new_name are the only clues. The description could have clarified that old_name is the current layer name and new_name is the desired name, but it does not.
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 function: to rename an existing layer. It uses a specific verb and object, which distinguishes it from other layer operations such as create or delete, even though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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 like rhino_layer_create or rhino_layer_list. There is no context about prerequisites, document state, or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.