batch_rename

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose that the operation renames across all source files, uses word-boundary matching, and returns modified files and replacement counts. However, it does not warn about side effects like permanent file modifications, collisions, or failure modes, which would matter for a deterministic editing 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the return value is stated briefly in the second sentence. Every word contributes useful information.

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 tool has three parameters, all documented in the schema, and the description covers the operation's scope, matching behavior, and return value. Although there is no output schema, the return format is explicitly summarized. Minor gaps remain around whether files are written immediately and how conflicts are handled, but the description is fairly complete for a rename tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a little semantic nuance with 'word-boundary match' for old_name, but it does not meaningfully elaborate on new_name or file_pattern beyond what the schema already states.

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 names the action (rename), the subject (a symbol), the matching rule (word-boundary match), and the scope (all source files in the project). This clearly distinguishes it from narrower editing tools like replace_symbol or patch_file, since it signals a project-wide operation.

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 implies that this tool is for renaming a symbol project-wide, which gives clear context for when it would be appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative (e.g., replace_symbol for a single occurrence) or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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