change_method_signature

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that it returns text edits, uses zero-based coordinates, and updates all call sites. Could mention potential conflicts or side effects, but overall adequate.

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?

Concise with clear sections for usage, output, parameter operations, and important notes. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

For a complex refactoring tool, the description covers prerequisites, coordinate system, parameter operations, and output format (text edits). No output schema provided, but explanation suffices. Complete and actionable.

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?

Input schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds extra semantics by explaining parameter operations (add, remove, rename, reorder) and default values, which goes beyond 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 verb 'change' and the resource 'method signature', and specifies it updates all call sites. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rename_symbol or extract_method.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Position on method declaration, provide changes' and prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first.' Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings, but gives sufficient guidance.

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