openai_update_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 only states 'Rename a project' and lists arguments, without mentioning permissions, side effects, reversibility, or any constraints. It adds no behavioral context beyond the operation itself.

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 action phrase followed by a compact Args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler. Every sentence is purposeful and earns its place.

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 rename with two parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It provides enough to invoke the tool correctly, but omits error handling, permission requirements, and response details, relying on the output schema.

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 only provides titles ('Name', 'Project Id') with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by labeling project_id as the project's ID (with a reference to openai_list_projects) and name as the new project name. However, it lacks input format or constraint details.

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 opens with 'Rename a project', a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, archive, or get. The parameter names and the 'see openai_list_projects' hint further clarify the action.

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 explicitly instructs to obtain the project ID via openai_list_projects, giving clear source context for a required argument. It does not mention alternative tools, but the unique 'rename' action implies when to use this tool.

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