Rename project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one meaningful side effect ('The new name shows in the sidebar rail') but does not mention other behavioral aspects like error cases, persistence, or authorization. This is adequate but not rich for a mutating operation.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every clause adds value: the resource, the id-finding tip, and the visible effect. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 simple params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: purpose, prerequisite, and effect. It lacks explicit mention of return values or failure modes, but these are less critical for a straightforward rename operation with available sibling context.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that 'id' is the project identifier obtained from list_projects and 'name' is the new display name. However, it does not provide details on id format or name constraints beyond the schema, leaving some gaps.

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 action ('Rename a remembered project by id') and uniquely identifies the resource and method, distinguishing it from sibling tools like recolor_project. The phrase 'find ids with list_projects' adds valuable context for how to use the tool correctly.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (renaming a project) and points to list_projects for finding ids, which is a correct alternative for a prerequisite step. It does not explicitly exclude using other rename tools, but the project-specific wording makes the intended use unambiguous.

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