inline_method

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns a text edit (not performing the change), uses zero-based coordinates, and lists limitations regarding project scope and method complexity. This is thorough for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, IMPORTANT, LIMITATIONS) and is concise. Every sentence provides essential information without 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?

Given the complexity of a refactoring operation, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, output format, coordinate system, limitations, and prerequisite. It is complete for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 100% with self-explanatory parameters, but the description adds value by stating 'ZERO-BASED coordinates' and clarifying that 'line' and 'column' refer to the method call position. This nuance goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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's function: 'Inline a method call by replacing it with the method body.' This is a specific verb (inline) and resource (method call), distinguishing it from siblings like inline_variable. The output is also described as a text edit.

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 explicit usage context: 'Position cursor on a method call' and prerequisites like 'Requires load_project to be called first.' It does not directly compare to alternatives but implies when to use via limitations on compatible methods.

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