plc_plan_rename

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/idempotent, and the description adds real substance: the specific checks performed (aliases, scope collisions, unavailable source, reference capture by rebinding), pagination of proven references, and a candid limits statement that external consumers and Sysmac build remain unverified.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The clause-heavy middle ('reference capture by rebinding') is jargon-ish but conveys a real check rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description covers scope, checks, paging and known blind spots for a read-only planning tool. Slightly incomplete in not clarifying whether the produced plan must be handed to a follow-up apply call.

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 only 33%, so the description needs to carry weight. 'Paginate proven references' gives context for limit/offset and 'without staging' implies transaction_id is not used here, but project_id, variable_id and new_name — including any naming constraints — get nothing beyond their titles.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare a concrete native variable rename without staging.' The 'plan, don't execute' framing distinguishes it in spirit from plc_rename_variable, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Without staging' implies this is a pre-check that avoids the transaction flow, but the description never says when to call this instead of plc_rename_variable or plc_plan_rename_data_type. The usage is inferable rather than stated.

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