phpactor_rename_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of type inference and project-wide updates, which is good. However, it does not mention potential side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. The mutation aspect is implied but not explicitly warned.

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 with only two sentences, front-loading the core action. Every sentence provides value, and there is no redundant information.

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 tool (renaming across a project) and the lack of an output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not mention the dryRun parameter, return value, or error handling, which would be helpful for an agent to understand the full behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what is in the schema.

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 the resource (PHP method, property, or constant). It specifies that it updates all references project-wide, which distinguishes it from similar tools. The mention of type inference to avoid incorrect renames adds 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?

The description implies when to use (renaming a member) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among sibling tools. It lacks guidance on choosing between this and tools like phpactor_rename_class or phpactor_move_class.

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