rename_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the default is non-writing, that a preview diff is returned, and that actual disk writes require both apply=True and a configuration setting. It does not mention undo behavior or possible conflicts, but the critical safety gating is explicit.

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 compact sentences with no wasted text. The default preview behavior and the write-gating condition are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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, the description supplies the key operational context: preview-by-default and the apply/writeChanges gate. An output schema exists to cover return values, though the description could say more about coordinate semantics or undo/conflict behavior.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it only covers apply. The required file_path, line, character, and new_name parameters are left to their self-explanatory names, and the optional symbol_name parameter is not mentioned at all.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a symbol', with clear scope 'across all workspace files via LSP'. It is easy to distinguish from the read-only sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 clearly explains the two usage modes: default apply=False returns a preview diff, while apply=True plus writeChanges enabled actually writes changes. It does not need to mention sibling alternatives because this is the only rename operation, but the when-to-use conditions are well specified.

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