Rename a project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as whether renaming affects URLs, references, or collaborator access, or whether it can be undone. It does not contradict annotations, but it fails to enrich them.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning. It is highly concise and well-structured for quick parsing.

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, the description is minimally adequate but not complete. It omits parameter explanations and usage context, though the tool name and parameter names provide some inferable meaning. Given the simple scope and existing annotations, a well-rounded definition would have at least briefly clarified the parameters or stated a use case.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for missing parameter details, but it does not. It mentions neither 'projectId' nor 'name' explicitly, leaving the agent to infer that 'name' is the new name and 'projectId' identifies the target. No formats, constraints, or examples are provided, so the semantics are entirely underspecified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Change the name of an Overleaf project.' This clearly conveys the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like archive_project or delete_project, which are also project-level operations, but the verb 'change the name' is unambiguous enough to avoid confusion.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., project must exist, user must have permission), no exclusions, and no hint about when renaming is appropriate compared to archiving or deleting. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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