Rename Symbol

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: it updates sub-symbol shards and extends references, and it does NOT update placed schematic instances. This goes beyond annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and limitations.

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?

Exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and immediately followed by the critical caveat. No redundant wording; every clause adds value.

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 destructive library mutation tool, the description addresses what is changed, what is not changed, and the appropriate alternative. An output schema exists, so return values are already covered. The description is fully sufficient given the tool's complexity and schema richness.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (libraryPath, oldName, newName). The description does not add further parameter-specific semantics, but the schema already makes each parameter clear. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Rename' and the resource 'a symbol in a .kicad_sym library', and further specifies that it includes sub-symbol shards and (extends ...) references. It explicitly contrasts with replace_instance_lib_ids, distinguishing its scope from that sibling tool.

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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool: when schematics already place the old lib_id, and directs the user to replace_instance_lib_ids instead. It also implies its use for library-level symbol renaming including derived symbols, providing clear context relative to alternatives.

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