rename_query

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the rename is token-aware, leaving strings, comments, and same-named columns untouched, which prevents unintended modifications. This is valuable beyond the schema. It does not mention side effects like irreversibility or permission requirements, but the core mutation behavior is well explained.

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 is dense with information: it states the action, the scope of rewriting, and the safety constraints. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately clarifies the behavioral nuance. No wasted 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?

The tool is moderately complex due to its global rewrite behavior and token-awareness. The description covers the key behavioral aspects, but it omits details about the 'dry_run' parameter and potential side effects (e.g., what happens if the old name doesn't exist). However, given that the output schema is absent and the parameter semantics are mostly inferable, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke it correctly, though the 'dry_run' behavior is a notable omission.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. The description does not explicitly explain the parameters 'source', 'old_name', 'new_name', or 'dry_run'. However, the tool name and description imply that 'old_name' and 'new_name' are the target and replacement names, and 'source' likely specifies the context. The 'dry_run' parameter's purpose (preview changes without applying) is not mentioned, which is a gap given the schema lacks any descriptions.

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 verb 'Rename' and the resource 'query', and importantly specifies the scope: it rewrites every reference in all other queries. It also distinguishes what it does not touch (strings, comments, same-named columns), which helps set expectations. This is highly specific and differentiates from siblings like 'rename_step' or 'replace_in_queries'.

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 a query and updating references globally, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'replace_in_queries' or 'rename_step'. The token-aware behavior is mentioned but no explicit 'when not to use' is given. However, the context suggests it is for query renaming, which is reasonably clear.

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