rename_method

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it does not disclose what a rename actually does — whether call sites/references are updated, whether it is reversible, or how it fails on ambiguous or overloaded methods. The only behavioral hint is the optional class scoping, which is minimal for a source-mutating refactor 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and the optional scope modifier are both stated efficiently. The brevity is not padded, though it edges into under-specification rather than excess.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation the description leaves too much unanswered: the role of method_signature, the effect on references, and error/ambiguity behavior are all missing.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only class_name ('optionally scoped'), and says nothing about method_name format or, critically, what method_signature is for (e.g., disambiguating overloads), leaving the most confusing parameter unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Renames a specific method') and distinguishes itself from the rename_field/rename_class/rename_variable siblings by resource type. The optional class scoping is also stated. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling renamers or clarifying overloaded-method handling.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and by the 'optionally scoped to class_name' qualifier, which hints at when the class parameter matters. There is no guidance on when to supply method_signature (e.g., for overloaded methods), no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the sibling rename_* tools.

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