nexus_rename_symbol

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

The annotations state readOnlyHint=true and the description says 'Preview,' but the schema includes an `apply` boolean (defaulting to false) that likely allows mutation. The description does not disclose that setting `apply=true` would execute the rename, nor does it clarify that the default is read-only. This is a significant gap because an agent could believe the tool is strictly read-only when it is not.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It delivers the core action, scope, and a key differentiator ('graph-scoped, not blind sed') efficiently. This is ideal conciseness.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and only a read-only annotation, the description needs to provide more context. It gives a vague 'Returns the changes to make' without describing the output structure, omits the `apply` behavior, and does not mention potential prerequisites like requiring an index (given sibling tools like nexus_index_build). The tool is not fully specified for an agent to use safely.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter clarity. It only mentions 'symbol' and 'workspace-wide,' leaving `file`, `apply`, `oldName`, and `newName` unexplained. While `oldName` and `newName` are fairly obvious, the critical `apply` parameter is not described at all, and `file`'s role is ambiguous.

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 'Preview' and the resource 'workspace-wide rename of a symbol,' immediately conveying the tool's purpose. The phrase 'graph-scoped, not blind sed' further distinguishes it from naive text replacement and clarifies the method. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose statement.

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 using this tool for a safe, graph-aware rename preview and contrasts it with 'blind sed,' but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when to avoid it. It also fails to mention the `apply` flag, which could be used to actually perform the rename, leaving a key usage scenario undisclosed.

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