prepare_rename

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

The description discloses what the tool returns (range, placeholder, or unsupported message) and that it may return null if the server lacks support. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden and does so adequately for a read-only validation tool.

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 three sentences with no extraneous content. It is well-structured, front-loading the purpose, then describing returns and usage. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description explains the return values (range, placeholder, message, null) adequately. It does not clarify what 'range' entails, but it is a standard LSP concept. The optional language_id parameter could be noted, but overall it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in input schema), so the description must explain the parameters. However, it does not describe file_path, language_id, line, column, nor their semantics. The tool name and context imply they specify a position, but explicit clarification is missing.

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 it validates rename possibility before rename_symbol, and distinguishes it from the sibling rename_symbol by indicating it's a preparatory step. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool before rename_symbol to avoid invalid renames, providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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