rename_function

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Rename a function' but does not mention side effects, permissions, persistence, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose first and then explains the input requirements. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 an output schema present, the description covers the essential input semantics but lacks depth on edge cases, expected outcomes, or limitations. It is minimally sufficient but leaves room for improvement in behavioral details.

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 schema has no descriptions for parameters and 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'identifier' can be either the current name or a hex address, and 'new_name' is the replacement name. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema fields, though it does not specify format constraints for the hex address.

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 a function.' This distinguishes it from siblings like rename_address, which likely targets addresses rather than functions. The additional context about passing current name or hex address reinforces the function-specific scope.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rename_address. It implies basic usage for renaming functions but does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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