Batch rename funcs/globals/locals/stack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It is a mutation tool, yet the description omits whether changes persist immediately or require saving, how conflicts are resolved, or what happens to existing names. The dry-run mention is merely restated by the schema's dry_run parameter and adds little beyond it.

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 that wastes no words. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity stems partly from under-specification rather than maximally informative economy.

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?

This is a persistent mutation with a complex nested batch schema and no annotations. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves critical gaps: state requirements, persistence/save behavior, and overwrite/conflict semantics that an agent needs before calling it.

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% and every nested field (func/data/local/stack, dry_run, stop_on_error, allow_overwrite, instance_id) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the structured fields already convey, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (batch-rename) and enumerates the four resources it operates on (funcs, globals, locals, stack vars), which matches the title. It is clear enough to distinguish from other mutating siblings in a RE/decompiler context, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 only usage-relevant hint is 'with dry-run options', which signals a preview-then-apply workflow but never states when to choose this tool, prerequisites (e.g., an open database), or alternatives to renaming in bulk.

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