rename_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether renaming is reversible, what happens if `from` does not match an existing project, whether other references to the project break, or whether permissions are required — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the action, but the second half ("after a wrong guess") is speculative framing that consumes space without informing invocation.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the definition should state failure behavior and side effects. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unable to predict outcomes.

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% (both `from` and `to` are documented as current/new name), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about naming constraints, uniqueness, or case sensitivity.

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 verb+resource ("Rename a project") is identifiable, but the trailing clause "after a wrong guess" is cryptic and reframes the tool as an error-correction action rather than a general rename. It does not distinguish it from siblings like rename_column or merge_projects, which are the nearest alternatives.

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?

"After a wrong guess" loosely implies a corrective scenario but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never mentions the adjacent alternatives (rename_column for columns, merge_projects for consolidation).

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