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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the destructive deletion of the old id, the lossless re-keying of JSON/versions/assets/clips, the enforced v4 UUID policy, and the editor refresh caveat. This is exemplary transparency for a mutating 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?

Every sentence earns its place: the opening sentence states the core action and scope, then the description covers the sibling contrast, UUID policy, user-facing impact, and refresh caveat without padding. Despite its density, it remains scannable and front-loaded.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is exceptionally complete: it explains the effect on all project data, the old id deletion, the ID policy, the parameter behavior, and the post-operation UI caveat. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and anticipate consequences.

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 already has 100% parameter coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the optional newId behavior, the v4 UUID requirement, and the automatic minting when newId is omitted.

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 names a specific verb ('Change a project's id') and resource, and goes further by stating the lossless re-keying scope and contrasting with create_project. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from rename_project by noting the user-facing name is untouched.

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 description gives clear context by explicitly contrasting with create_project (clone) and noting version history preservation, so an agent understands when reid_project is appropriate. It does not enumerate exclusions or other alternative tools, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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