change_method_signature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool returns text edits for declaration and call sites, and the caller applies them. It also notes zero-based coordinates and required load_project. More detail on error handling or side effects would improve it.

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 structured with clear sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, PARAMETER OPERATIONS, IMPORTANT) and each sentence contributes valuable information. It is slightly verbose but well-organized.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the output is text edits and mentions prerequisites. It covers the main behavioral aspects, though details on edit format or error conditions would enhance completeness.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema by detailing parameter operations (add with default, remove, rename, reorder) and clarifying the use of zero-based coordinates. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enriches understanding.

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 tool changes method signature (parameters, return type, or name) and updates call sites. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like rename_symbol or inline_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?

The description provides usage guidance ('Position on method declaration, provide changes') and prerequisites ('Requires load_project to be called first'). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is sufficient for the agent.

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