Rename module

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

Annotations declare the mutation/destructive profile, and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: procedure calls elsewhere in the project are NOT rewritten, so a rename can break references. It also states that the file is saved and that host-owned document modules are immutable.

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?

Three sentences, each front-loaded with the operation, the reference-rewrite caveat, and the document-module restriction. No filler.

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?

For a mutating rename with an output schema present, the description covers the surprising semantics (unrewritten call sites), the save side effect, the prerequisite search step, and the hard restriction. Nothing needed to call it safely is missing.

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%, including the safety-gated allow_protected and allow_invalidate_signature flags, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about argument syntax or constraints beyond what the schema documents — the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Renames a VBA module') plus the precise scope ('everywhere its name is stored, and saves the file'), which distinguishes it from xlide_write_module, xlide_edit_module, and xlide_delete_module in the sibling list.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('search for the old name first with xlide_search_modules') and a clear exclusion ('Document modules such as ThisWorkbook and Sheet1 cannot be renamed, because the host owns them'). It does not, however, contrast rename against edit_module/write_module, which could also change a module name.

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