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

Annotations already state the operation is a write (readOnly=false), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by clarifying exactly what attribute changes ('display name') and what does not ('project_code'), preventing any misunderstanding about the tool's effect. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with a parenthetical that adds essential scope information. It is front-loaded with the primary action, contains no redundant words, and every part contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 simple mutation tool with only two parameters and no output schema. The description clearly states what the tool does and what it does not affect. While it could mention immediate persistence or side effects, those are not typically necessary for a straightforward rename, and the annotations cover safety characteristics. The description is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already explains that 'name' is a new display name and 'project_id' is a UUID. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what is already present in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Rename a project') and adds a crucial scope distinction ('changes display name, not project_code'). This clearly differentiates the tool from any potential update or modification tools and accurately states its exact function.

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 implicitly communicates when to use the tool: whenever a project's display name needs to be changed. The parenthetical exclusion of project_code provides a clear boundary, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X'. Context is clear, though no direct comparison exists.

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