roslyn:change_signature

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: two-step preview/apply process, zero-based coordinates, and output structure (oldSignature, newSignature, call sites). It implies mutation but doesn't detail reversibility or permissions.

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 clear sections (ACTIONS, WORKFLOW, OUTPUT, IMPORTANT) and is concise, using minimal sentences to convey essential 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 no output schema, the description explains return values (oldSignature, newSignature, call sites) and the preview workflow, making it complete for a refactoring tool with a required preview step.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: workflow for preview, zero-based coordinate requirement, and enumeration of actions (add, remove, rename, reorder) which clarifies the changes array parameter.

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 modifies a method signature and previews call site impact, listing specific actions (add, remove, rename, reorder) which differentiates it 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?

The description provides a clear workflow: preview first (preview=true), review changes, then apply (preview=false). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives among siblings.

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