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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only. The description adds valuable context: it clarifies that only the display name is affected, the slug remains unchanged, and an ownership check yields a 404-equivalent error. This adds behavioral nuance beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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?

Three focused sentences, each earning its place: the core action and scope, the auth requirement, and an error condition. No filler or redundant wording.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what doesn't change, required credentials, and an error scenario. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description enriches this by explaining that the slug is the identifier that never changes and that the name is the display name, reinforcing the tool's purpose beyond the raw parameter definitions.

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 clearly states the specific verb (rename), resource (project), and the precise scope: only the display name changes while the slug stays the same. This distinguishes it from sibling operations like create_project or archive_project without ambiguity.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use the tool (to change a project's display name) and explicitly states the prerequisites: an ACCOUNT-scoped management token with the config scope. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools, but no sibling performs this exact action, so the guidance is sufficient.

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