rename_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether the edit is in-place or requires save, how attach interacts with the live instance, or what happens to unmapped variables. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it is arguably too sparse given the tool's behavioral burden rather than being overlong.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and nested rename maps, the description omits persistence, live-attach, and failure behavior. An agent cannot tell whether the source file is modified or whether save is required to keep results.

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 83% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description adds that renames/longNames are keyed by 'current variable name or index', reinforcing the map semantics beyond the schema's own text, but it does not clarify sheet, attach, or save behavior.

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?

States a specific verb (Rename) and resource (variables), and additionally covers long-name changes, which distinguishes it from add_variables/delete_variables siblings by implication. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. The phrase 'keyed by current variable name or index' hints at how arguments map, but nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus set_formula, write_variables, or recode.

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