replace_symbol_body

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses default preview mode (apply=false), that apply=true writes to disk, and that the language-server outline supplies the exact span. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., symbol not found), side effects beyond disk write, or the exact return format beyond file:line. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences long, which is concise. However, the second sentence is somewhat dense, combining multiple ideas (default preview, apply flag, token-cheap advantage). It could be slightly restructured for readability, but overall it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, 2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what happens if the symbol is missing, the exact output format beyond file:line, or scenarios where disambiguation fails. The description covers the main idea but lacks crucial operational details for reliable use.

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%, meaning some parameters lack descriptions. The description adds context for symbol, body, path, line, and apply (e.g., 'default false = preview only'), but does not describe projectPath, backend, or maxResults. It compensates partially but not fully for the undocumented parameters.

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 replaces a whole declaration by naming it, using the language-server outline to avoid reading the file. It distinguishes itself from siblings like rename and insert-by-symbol by focusing on replacing the entire body including signature, and from the edit tool by being token-cheap and symbol-level. The verb 'replace' and resource 'declaration' are specific.

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 says to use when you want to replace a declaration by name without reading the file, and contrasts with reading then editing. It implies alternatives (edit tool) but does not exhaustively list when not to use or give explicit when-to-use scenarios. The guidance is clear but not fully comprehensive.

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