annotation.rename_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. As a renaming/mutation tool, the description should note whether the rename affects global state, triggers analysis updates, or requires a specific session mode. None of these are mentioned. The description is too vague to understand side effects or constraints.

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 overly terse—only 3 words—which is under-specification, not conciseness. It front-loads the verb 'Rename' but contributes no useful elaboration. Every sentence should earn its place; here there is only one sentence that earns almost nothing.

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 complexity of the domain (Binary Ninja reverse engineering tool with many annotation/manipulation siblings) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain what a 'function' means in this context, how the rename is applied, or any return value. Complete failure to meet the needs of an AI agent selecting among dozens of tools.

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%, meaning the input property names and types carry all semantic weight. The description adds nothing about what 'function_start', 'new_name', or 'session_id' represent beyond their names. For example, 'function_start' could be an address or a symbol reference, but the description does not clarify. With 3 undocumented parameters, this is a critical gap.

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 'Rename a function.' states a clear verb ('rename') and resource ('function'), but is extremely generic. Among sibling tools like 'annotation.rename_symbol', 'annotation.rename_data_var', and 'type.rename', it fails to distinguish what kind of function (e.g., Binary Ninja function) is being renamed or in what context. The title is null, which further reduces clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling renaming tools like 'annotation.rename_symbol' or 'type.rename'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context required, or alternative tools. The description is a bare tautology with no usage advice.

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