rename_variable

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the crucial behavioral trait that dependent references are updated automatically, which is not captured in annotations or schema. This provides valuable side-effect context beyond the structured data.

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 front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates both the operation and its key side effect. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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?

The tool is simple, has 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations that cover the destructive profile. The description conveys the core purpose and side effect. Potential failure conditions are likely covered by error responses given the output schema, so the description is complete enough for this tool.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is high. The description adds domain context that the variable types are stock/flow/aux, clarifying that old_name and new_name refer to these specific model elements, which the schema's generic 'variable name' descriptions do not convey.

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 'stock/flow/aux' plus the side effect 'update dependent references'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_variable and rename_module, making its purpose 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 gives a clear context for use—when you need to rename a variable—and implicitly indicates it applies to stock/flow/aux. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool over siblings.

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