rename_local_variable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses the Hex-Rays dependency. There is no mention of side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the binary), error conditions (e.g., variable not found), reversibility, or permissions needed. No annotation contradiction.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though it sacrifices completeness. It earns its place but could benefit from more structured information.

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?

Given three required parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and an existing output schema (not shown), the description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine how to specify the function identifier, what the return value is, or what errors may occur. The output schema existence partially offsets the need to explain return format, but parameter usage remains unclear.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description does not clarify the meaning or format of any parameter beyond their names. For instance, 'function_identifier' could be an address, a name, or a numeric ID; no guidance is provided. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 explicitly states the action 'Rename' and the resource 'local variable or argument in a decompiled function'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'rename_function' (renames functions) and 'rename_address' (renames addresses). The mention of Hex-Rays adds specificity.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires Hex-Rays') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'set_local_variable_type' or 'rename_function'. There is no mention of when not to use it or the context in which local variables exist.

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