rename_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully discloses that the tool mutates display names, truncates names over 50 characters, and supports batching. It does not cover failure behavior or undo/reversibility, but the core mutation is clearly communicated.

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 three short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action, then adds the display-name detail, truncation rule, and batch capability, each earning 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 two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. It covers the core operation and key edge-case behavior, though it does not describe return values or what happens when an update targets a nonexistent node.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the 50-character truncation rule for the name parameter and clarifying that updates accepts batch renames in a single call.

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 and resource: 'Rename one or more layers in the design' and specifies the exact effect, 'Sets the display name shown in the layer tree.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_nodes, duplicate_nodes, and move_nodes.

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 intended use is implied from the description, but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or conditions for when not to use this tool. The batch-rename mention provides some capability context, but no guidance on when to choose this over related node-manipulation tools.

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