Rename Package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — the rename cascades to all contained classes — but a mutation tool of this kind should say whether references/xrefs are updated, whether changes persist to disk or require an apply step, and whether the operation is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — efficient structurally. It is thin for the tool's complexity, but that shortfall is captured in the other dimensions rather than here.

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 needn't be explained. Everything else is missing, though: undocumented parameters, no annotations covering the mutation risk, and no statement of persistence or side effects for a two-parameter destructive operation.

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, and it does not: neither old_package_name nor new_package_name appears in the text. An agent gets no hint about expected format (dotted name vs. path), whether a missing package is an error, or what happens if the new name already exists.

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 plus resource ("Renames a package") and adds the scope qualifier "and all its classes," which implicitly separates it from the sibling rename_class that operates on a single class. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 pick this over rename_class, rename_method, or rename_field, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The only routing signal is the word "package" in the resource.

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