java_rename_class

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'update all references using OpenRewrite' but does not explain safety (e.g., preview via dryRun), error handling, or side effects like modifying multiple files. The dryRun parameter is not referenced in the description.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points for usage hints) but remains efficient.

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 a complex refactoring operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description omits details on return values, success/failure indicators, idempotence, and prerequisites. It is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully describes all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, hence baseline score of 3.

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 'Rename a Java class and update all references using OpenRewrite', specifying the verb 'rename', the resource 'Java class', and the additional action of updating references. This differentiates it from sibling tools like java_move_class or java_rename_field.

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 (e.g., java_move_class for moving classes, java_rename_field for renaming fields). There are no explicit context or exclusion cues.

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