rename_symbol

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

No annotations exist, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions whole-word match and dry_run, but does not state whether renaming is destructive, backs up files, or requires permissions. Effects on multiple files or partial matches are not disclosed.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The core functionality is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a key usage note. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool modifies files, but the description lacks context on return values, error handling, or what happens on conflicts. With no output schema and no annotations, more completeness is needed to fully inform usage.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only describes dry_run (preview). Old, new, and root are mentioned by name but their meaning (e.g., symbol names, directory path) is not clarified.

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), the resource (a symbol across MQL files), and a key constraint (whole-word match). It distinguishes from siblings like find_symbol by indicating an active change operation.

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 (when renaming a symbol) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. The dry_run preview is mentioned, but no comparisons to other tools are provided.

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