rename

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses key behaviors: default preview mode showing affected file:line, and apply=true to write. It also clarifies semantic scope (every reference).

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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose and behavior. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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?

The description explains the main workflow (preview vs. apply) and scope but lacks output format details and does not cover optional parameters. No annotations or output schema exist, so more completeness would be beneficial, but core functionality is clear.

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 63% (5 of 8 parameters described in schema). The description adds the preview/apply behavior to the apply parameter but does not explain projectPath, backend, or maxResults. It refers to 0-based position, which matches schema descriptions of line and character.

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 tool renames a symbol at a 0-based position project-wide, emphasizing semantic rename (every reference) and distinguishing from a simple sed replacement.

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 recommends using this tool 'instead of editing call sites by hand,' providing a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use or compare with sibling tools like replace_symbol_body or safe_delete.

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