Rename a symbol

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that it 'save[s] every changed file' and operates 'across the whole workspace,' which is important behavioral context. It doesn't cover undoability or permission requirements, but it adds meaningful detail about side effects.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, and the second provides a comparative benefit. Every word earns its place.

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 that there is no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it does (LSP rename), scope (workspace), and side effects (saves changed files). It is sufficiently complete for this straightforward mutation tool, though it could mention potential reliability dependencies on the LSP.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already having a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Rename a symbol across the whole workspace with the LSP, then save every changed file.' It uses a specific verb and resource (rename symbol) and distinguishes itself from sibling editing tools by emphasizing workspace-wide LSP-based renaming.

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 context by stating 'Safer than a text search and replace,' which implies when this tool should be preferred over naive text editing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the rationale gives a clear usage signal.

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