dev_update_project

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'rename' (a mutation) but does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or response behavior. The description lacks critical details about what this tool does beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise at one sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it may be too brief, sacrificing clarity for brevity. The structure is acceptable but lacks detail.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not mention expected outcomes, return values, or any constraints. The agent lacks context on what happens after a rename (e.g., ID changes? references updated?).

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the two parameters 'projectId' and 'name' beyond the generic rename action. The intended use of 'name' (new name) and 'projectId' (ID of project to rename) is implied but not explicitly clarified.

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 Lamatic project', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dev_create_project or dev_delete_project, though the tool name 'dev_update_project' might imply broader update functionality beyond just renaming.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like dev_rename_flow for flows. The usage context is entirely implicit.

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