Before/after decompile of one edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return shape {before, after, action_applied, changes_detected} and the exact effect of each action. What it leaves unstated is whether the edit is persisted/committed to the database or reversible, which matters for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the action-then-observe behavior and tight overall, but the opening clause ('rename a function, set its type, or add a comment') is partially restated by the following 'Actions:' list, so one sentence is somewhat redundant.

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?

Covers the actions, their arguments, the intended workflow, and the return payload; an output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, and the remaining schema parameter (instance_id) is self-documented. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is 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?

The schema documents addr/action/action_args/instance_id at 100% coverage, but the nested action_args is a bare untyped object; the description compensates by enumerating the per-action payloads ('rename_func' -> {name: str}, 'set_type' -> {type: str}, 'set_comment' -> {comment: str}), which is genuine meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: apply a specific edit (rename/set_type/set_comment) to a function and return before/after decompilation. It contrasts itself against the sibling pattern (rename then decompile separately), so an agent can distinguish it from 'rename', 'set_type', and 'decompile' without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative workflow it replaces (calling rename then decompile separately) and the condition that selects it (verifying a rename or type change improved readability), plus a second scenario (confirming each change during batch renaming). When-to-use is stated, not inferred.

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