annotation.rename_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the core mutation (rename) but discloses no behavioral details: whether the rename is reversible, what happens if the symbol does not exist, if name validation occurs, or if there are side effects on cross-references. The description is too sparse for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, a single sentence. While it communicates the core purpose without fluff, it is arguably too brief given the lack of additional context in the schema or annotations. Still, it earns its place by stating the action and resource.

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 3 required parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and a large sibling group of similar tools, the description is woefully incomplete. It omits return values, error conditions, relationship to other rename tools, and any usage hints. The tool cannot be correctly invoked based on this definition alone.

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%, and the description adds no value beyond the parameter names. It does not explain the allowed format for 'new_name', the expected type for 'address' (integer vs string), or any constraints. The parameters remain entirely undocumented.

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 clearly states the action (rename) and resource (symbol at address). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like annotation.rename_function or annotation.rename_data_var, which target specific symbol types. However, it does not explicitly clarify that this tool handles any symbol not covered by those specialized siblings.

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 alternatives. The sibling tools include specific rename tools for functions and data variables, but the description gives no indication of when this general rename is appropriate or what prerequisites exist (e.g., symbol must already exist).

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