lsp_rename

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns edits rather than applying them directly, and it honestly flags the limitation that the server may return -32601 and suggests manual fallback. This is strong behavioral disclosure for an unannotated 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 three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the return behavior and a critical limitation. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or 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?

The description covers the purpose, output, and a key failure mode, but it omits important context such as whether the language server must be initialized, whether the target file must already be open, or whether line/character are zero-based. For an LSP operation with dependencies on sibling tools like lsp_initialize and lsp_open, this is a noticeable gap.

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 0% with four required parameters, and the description adds no parameter detail. It never explains line/character coordinate semantics or how file_path and new_name interact. The description must compensate given the low schema coverage, and it does not.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'compute workspace edits to rename a symbol.' It also differentiates itself by explaining the result is a set of edits across all files, which distinguishes it from browsing tools like lsp_references or lsp_definition.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when renaming a symbol, and the returned edits can be applied to perform the rename. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when it is appropriate.

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