ida_rename

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Rename' implies a mutation of the IDA database, but the description does not disclose whether this affects references, requires a specific IDA state, or whether the operation is reversible. It merely states the action without side-effect context.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core action and parameters. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral caveats (e.g., prerequisites, side effects), which leaves some gaps for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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% as both parameters have descriptions ('Address to rename' and 'New name (IDA-valid identifier)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for a parameter set already fully documented.

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 specific action (rename) and the resource (function, label, or global variable at an address). It distinguishes itself from similar IDA tools like ida_set_type or ida_comment by naming the exact operation, leaving no ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when another tool (e.g., ida_set_type or ida_run_script) would be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the action verb.

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