rename_project_item

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action (rename) and the context (duplicate_sequence). It does not disclose potential side effects, whether it mutates only the panel or also affects references, whether it requires the project item to exist or be unlocked, or any error conditions. Given the mutation nature, key behavioral info like scope and side effects is missing.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence defines the action, the second provides usage context. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and the specific context. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, whether the rename is persistent, or any naming constraints (e.g., forbidden characters). Slightly thin for a mutation tool, but acceptable given the low param count.

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%, and both parameters are clearly described ('newName' and 'projectItemId'). The description adds context about the type (sequence, bin, clip) but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents both parameters effectively.

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 it renames a project item (sequence, bin, clip) by setting its name. The purpose is specific and distinct from siblings like rename_bin, rename_track, batch_rename_clips, and delete_project_item.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this when duplicate_sequence does not propagate the new name to the project panel.' This clearly differentiates it from rename_bin or batch_rename_clips, though it could mention when not to use it, but the conditional context is strong.

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