Rename module

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-read-only, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: the file is saved as part of the operation, procedure calls are not rewritten, and host-owned document modules are protected from renaming. This level of disclosure is far more than the annotations provide alone.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then covering caveats. Every clause adds useful information: what happens, what does not happen, what to do instead, and which modules are unsupported. There is no filler or repetition.

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 annotations, 100 percent parameter coverage, and an output schema, the description provides a complete picture for correct invocation. It covers the destructive nature through annotations, the side effect of saving, the project-wide scope limitation, and the prerequisite search step. The optional parameters are adequately surfaced by the schema, so nothing essential 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?

The schema already documents all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema by explaining that document modules cannot be renamed, which directly informs the module_name parameter. It does not explain the two optional booleans in depth, but the schema already names them and the description's added module_name constraint justifies a slight boost.

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 states an exact operation: renaming a VBA module and saving the file. It also clarifies what the operation does not do, which distinguishes it from related module tools like xlide_write_module or xlide_delete_module. The explicit mention of xlide_search_modules and document-module limitations removes ambiguity.

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 gives a clear when-not case: document modules such as ThisWorkbook cannot be renamed. It also instructs the agent to search for the old name first with xlide_search_modules, which is a useful precondition. It could be even stronger by stating explicitly that this tool should be used only for renaming, not for rewriting module contents, but the guidance is already clear enough not to confuse alternatives.

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