Rename Class

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not disclose whether the rename updates cross-references, whether it is reversible, whether the class must be currently selected or loaded, or any failure modes.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but in this case brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still omits essential mutation semantics for a two-parameter, zero-coverage schema. An agent knows the intent but not the preconditions or side effects.

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% for both required parameters. The phrase 'a specific class' loosely implies class_name, but new_name is never explained, and there is no hint about naming conventions or whether a fully-qualified name is required.

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 verb+resource pair (rename + class) is identifiable, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like rename_method, rename_field, or rename_package beyond the word 'class'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over renaming via other means, no prerequisite that the class must exist or be loaded, and no mention of what happens to references. The agent is left to infer everything.

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