Personally I've called it a mistake, since there's no way a tool can infer what happened based on that information.
That might sound like a major caveat, but many companies either ban renames or have a special "out-of-band" process for them anyway, once a table is being used in production. This is necessary because renames have substantial deploy-order complexity, i.e. you cannot make the schema change at the same exact instant as the corresponding application change, and the vast majority of ORMs don't provide anything to make this sane.
In any case, many thousands of companies use declarative schema management. Some of the largest companies on earth use it. It is known to work, and when engineered properly, it definitely improves development velocity.
Small things where you don’t have DBA or whatever, sure use tooling like you would for auto-changes in a local development.
Renames aren't compatible with that automation flow though, which is what I meant by "out-of-band". They rely on careful orchestration alongside code change deploys, which gets especially nasty when you have thousands of application servers and thousands of database shards. In some DBMS, companies automate them using a careful dance of view-swapping, but that seems brittle performance-wise / operationally.
[1] In theory a custom ORM could have some kind of dynamic conditional logic for table or column renames, i.e. some way to configure it to retry a query with the "new" name if the query using the "old" name fails. But that has a huge perf impact, and I'm not aware of any common ORMs that do this. So generally if you want to rename a table or column that is already used in prod, there's no way to do it without causing user-facing errors or having system downtime during the period between the SQL rename DDL and the application code change redeploy.