rename_symbol

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'whole-word match' and 'dry_run=True previews only', but does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, creates backups, or requires specific permissions. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Description is short (one sentence + code snippet) with no fluff. However, structure could be improved by listing parameter roles more clearly. It is concise but not maximally informative for the space used.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'root' parameter, the effect on files, or how to interpret results. An agent cannot safely invoke the tool based on this description alone.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema). Description only explains 'dry_run' partially, leaving 'old', 'new', and 'root' undefined. The term 'symbol' is vague without further context. Description fails to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 renames a symbol across MQL files with whole-word matching. The verb 'rename' and resource 'symbol across MQL files' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to prefer dry_run, or contrast with other tools like 'find_symbol' or 'format_mql'.

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