Rename symbol

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

Annotations already signal a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is not classified as destructive. The description adds the function-vs-local mode distinction, but that is also captured in the schema's old_name description. It does not disclose persistence, reference updates, return behavior, or error cases, so it adds only modest transparency beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the operation, the second gives the conditional parameter behavior, and the third provides practical context. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a straightforward 3-parameter rename, the description plus schema is enough to select the correct parameters. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return values, side effects, name validity, or whether renaming updates references elsewhere. This leaves some invocation uncertainty for an 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?

The description restates the old_name behavior already present in the schema ('Current local-variable name. Omit to rename the function.'). It does not add meaningful semantics for new_name beyond its schema minLength, nor does it explain naming constraints or the address parameter beyond what the schema states. With 67% schema coverage, the description is adequate but not compensatory.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a function, or a local variable inside one.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by stating exactly what operation is performed, and the added UI-context sentence reinforces the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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?

It provides explicit procedural guidance: pass old_name to rename a local variable, omit it to rename the function itself. It also notes that this is what a click on an identifier fires, giving a concrete real-world trigger. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the operation is distinct enough among siblings that this is a minor gap.

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