rename

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

With no annotations, description discloses it's a language-server rename updating all references, default preview returning file:line list, and apply=true writes to disk. This covers key behavioral aspects, though it omits details like required permissions or rate limits, which are less critical for a rename tool.

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?

Two sentences, each packing essential information: first explains semantic nature and method, second covers default behavior, apply toggle, and usage recommendation. No redundant words.

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 complex tool (project-wide rename with preview/write), the description covers semantic behavior, default mode, how to apply, and returns. It also distinguishes from text sed. Without output schema, it mentions return format (file:line list). No annotations, but description alone is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the 'apply' parameter's default (false = preview) and its effect. Schema covers the 4 required params (path, line, character, newName) with descriptions, but 3 optional params (projectPath, backend, maxResults) have no descriptions in either schema or description. Overall, the key parameters are well-addressed.

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?

Description clearly states the tool semantically renames a symbol across the whole project using language-server logic, contrasting with a text sed replacement. It specifies verb (rename), resource (symbol), and 0-based position, distinguishing it from siblings like replace_symbol_body.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use this instead of editing call sites by hand,' giving a clear usage context. Explains default preview behavior and option to apply edits, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for non-semantic text replacement), though the contrast is implied.

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