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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description usefully clarifies that only the display name in the Symbols panel changes, but it says nothing about whether the new name propagates to existing symbol instances, what happens on duplicate names, or error behavior.

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 tight sentence with the scope clarifier in parentheses, front-loaded with verb and resource. Slight redundancy with the title, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves gaps: rename side effects on instances and failure modes are unstated. Adequate, but not complete for a write 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: symbolId is documented as coming from list_symbols, but the name parameter has no schema description. The parenthetical 'the name shown in the Symbols panel' adds real meaning for that parameter, which is why this sits at the baseline rather than below it.

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 gives a specific verb (Rename) and resource (a symbol), and the parenthetical pins down exactly which name is affected. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling rename-like tools such as swebsy_rename_site or swebsy_promote_to_symbol.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. An agent must infer that this is the tool for changing an existing symbol's label rather than re-creating or promoting one.

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