cos_graph_rename_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds value by detailing what the plan covers (call-sites, docs, tests, strings) and mentions 'risk', giving extra context about the expected behavior beyond the annotations. No contradiction with 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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clean Args list. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy. It is an example of efficient structure.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, and the scope of the plan. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema provides only field names with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: uid's scheme formats and auto-resolution, new_name as replacement symbol name, and check_strings as an option to scan string literals. This is crucial for correct invocation and well above the baseline.

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 starts with 'Plan a rename — call-sites, docs, tests, strings, risk.' This clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource, and it uniquely identifies what the tool covers. It is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from sibling graph tools by focusing on rename planning.

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 implies the use case: when you need to plan a rename and assess its impact across call-sites, docs, tests, and strings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for rename planning. A small deduction for not mentioning 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.