rename_global_variable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Rename a global variable' implies a mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether the rename affects existing references, error conditions, or what happens if the new_name is empty (despite the schema hinting at default behavior). The description lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 maximally concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after renaming, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how it interacts with sibling renaming tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall context for using this tool remains inadequate.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing extra.

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 resource ('global variable'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like rename_function, rename_local_variable, or rename_stack_frame_variable, which all perform similar renaming operations on different resource types.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple renaming tools in the sibling list (rename_function, rename_local_variable, rename_stack_frame_variable), but the description doesn't explain that this one specifically handles global variables rather than functions, local variables, or stack frame variables.

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