project_rename

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and mostly drops it. It does not say whether the rename is reversible, whether the name must be globally unique (only the schema hints at it), what happens if the projectId is invalid, whether the active project context is affected, or what the call returns.

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 single sentence is front-loaded, unambiguous, and free of filler. Its brevity, however, reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. Missing are the safety profile (permanence, uniqueness constraint, error on unknown projectId) that would let an agent invoke it confidently without annotations.

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%: projectId ('Database ID of the project to rename') and name ('New unique name for the project') are documented inline. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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 gives a specific verb (rename) and a specific resource (existing project workspace), so the agent knows exactly what the operation does. It does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as project_create, project_delete, or env_rename, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Existing' is the only hint about preconditions, implying the project must already be present. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g., use project_create for new projects) to guide selection among the many project_* siblings.

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