Update project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (rename) without detailing side effects, authorization needs, or idempotency. The lack of safety or lifecycle information reduces transparency.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, efficiently using the space.

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 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential action and enterprise restriction. However, it omits details like what the output contains, error cases, or that only the name can be updated. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it merely paraphrases the overall operation. It does not explain constraints or formatting for the 'name' field.

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 tool renames an existing project, matching the 'update' action but specifying 'Rename' which aligns with the only updatable parameter (name). It distinguishes this from create and delete siblings, though it could explicitly clarify that only the name can be changed.

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 indicates use for renaming a project and notes it's an Enterprise feature, which implies prerequisites. However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like create or delete project, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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