renameSymbol

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, meaning the tool modifies files. The description adds that it returns affected files and edit counts, providing transparency about the output. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., LSP not supporting rename) or prerequisites.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action and output. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool modifies files and has no output schema, the description is somewhat terse. It mentions the return value but lacks details on prerequisites, LSP dependencies, or safety warnings. Useful but not fully complete.

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 100% and each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as the parameters (filePath, line, column, newName) are self-explanatory. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 across all files via LSP, and specifies the output as affected files and edit counts. This differentiates it from sibling tools like renameFile, which renames a file, not a symbol.

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 usage for renaming symbols across files via LSP, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find-and-replace or other refactoring tools. No when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.

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