rename_class

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention effects on other references, reversibility, permissions, or UI updates. The minimal text does not compensate for missing annotations.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but not wasteful. However, it is too terse to be fully informative; a slightly longer description adding usage context would be more valuable.

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?

For a mutation tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return behavior, whether it updates references, or any prerequisites. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of context in the description.

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 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description adds no meaning beyond parameter names; it does not clarify expected formats (e.g., full path vs simple name for class_name) or constraints on new_name.

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 action (renames) and resource (class), distinguishing it from sibling rename tools for field, method, package, and variable. However, it could be more specific by indicating the context, such as 'in the current decompilation session'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like rename_field or rename_method. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or conditions that would help the agent decide.

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