rename_project

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

Discloses authorize-before-reveal behavior (403 instead of not-found), validation constraints, and auth method (SIWX). No annotations present, so description carries full burden. Lacks details on idempotency or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and HTTP method. Some technical details (auth, validation) are included but not excessive. Could be slightly more concise.

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?

Covers purpose, auth, validation, and security behavior. With no output schema, missing description of return value or success indication. Adequate for a simple rename operation but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and descriptions in the schema already cover parameter meanings. The description repeats validation constraints (non-empty, ≤200 chars) but adds no new semantic info beyond the schema.

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 'Rename a project (PATCH /projects/v1/:id) — fix an auto-generated name', specifying the verb (rename), resource (project), and context (fix auto-generated name). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rename_org.

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?

Description provides authorization details (org-membership, project:write) and mentions when to use (fix auto-generated name) and that it works even if project not in local key store. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to alternatives.

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