rename_module

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context such as reversibility, side effects on references, or permission requirements. It simply restates the operation without enriching the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is not verbose, but it is also minimal and does not add contextual value beyond the core purpose.

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 simple nature of the tool, the presence of full schema descriptions, and an output schema, the one-line description is partially adequate. However, it omits context about module identity, scoping via model_id/workspace_id, and potential side effects of renaming, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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%, with all four parameters individually described. The description itself adds no parameter semantics; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 the action ('Rename') and the resource ('existing module'). It is distinct from create/delete/add/remove module tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from rename_variable, so it misses the full sibling distinction required for a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when renaming is appropriate, or any interaction with other module operations, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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