type.rename

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. The single phrase 'Rename a type.' discloses nothing about side effects, idempotency, error conditions, permissions, or impact on references. This is insufficient for a mutation in a complex domain.

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 short (3 words), but conciseness without informativeness is under-specification. Front-loading is not relevant. Every sentence should earn its place, and here the one sentence is insufficient for the tool's complexity. A 2 is appropriate for being too terse.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and a complex set of sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. The tool requires three parameters with no explanation. The agent cannot understand the tool's role in the broader system or how to use it correctly. Completeness is essentially absent.

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%. The description does not explain any of the three required parameters (session_id, old_name, new_name). No guidance on what session_id represents, naming conventions, or what happens if the old_name does not exist or the new_name conflicts. The agent gets no semantics beyond the parameter names.

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 type.' is a minimal statement of action and resource. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity to distinguish the type of type being renamed (user-defined, library) from sibling tools like annotation.rename_function or type.define_user. It provides no scope or constraints, making it only marginally clear.

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. There are numerous sibling tools for renaming different entities (annotation.rename_function, annotation.rename_symbol, annotation.rename_data_var, type.undefine_user, etc.). Without any usage context, an agent cannot discriminate which rename operation to invoke.

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