rename_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key trait that this is a project-wide rewrite rather than a single-file edit, which is real behavioral value. However, it never states that it writes to disk (a destructive mutation), what happens if the symbol is not found at that line/occurrence, or that a preview mode exists to avoid unintended writes.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the symbol/line/file locators, with zero filler. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 six-parameter, project-wide mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin. The two most safety-relevant facts — that it writes changes across the whole project and that preview=true returns a diff instead of writing — are absent, so an agent could invoke a destructive refactor without knowing the dry-run escape hatch.

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 83%, so the schema already documents file, line, symbol, and occurrence; the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating them. Notably it is silent on the preview parameter (default false) and on occurrence disambiguation, leaving the schema to carry those entirely.

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 (rename), resource (symbol), and scope (across the project), with the three required locators inlined. An agent immediately understands the operation, though the description never names a sibling (find_references, workspace_symbols) to differentiate from, which is the main thing separating a 4 from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The phrase 'across the project' hints at a project-wide refactor rather than a local edit, but the description never suggests previewing first or reaching for find_references to verify the blast radius before committing.

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