what_if_rename

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires any permissions. The 'what_if' prefix implies no side effects, but this is not explicitly confirmed, leaving ambiguity about actual impact.

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 extremely concise, with a single line stating the purpose, followed by clearly structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary and no words are wasted.

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 has three parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema (not detailed), the description provides basic context but lacks depth. It mentions the return type ('dosya ve satır listesi') but does not describe the output schema structure or any edge cases. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'path: Proje kök dizini' (project root), 'target: Yeniden adlandırılacak sembol adı' (symbol to rename), 'new_name: Yeni isim' (new name). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Bu sembolü yeniden adlandırsam nereleri değiştirmem gerekir?' which means 'If I rename this symbol, where do I need to change?'. It specifies a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('symbol'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'what_if_delete' by focusing on renaming rather than deletion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'analyze_impact' or 'what_if_delete'. The description simply states what it does without explaining when it is appropriate or when not to use it.

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