plan_project_renames

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

The description reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation by stating 'This tool NEVER renames anything,' and adds valuable context about what is returned: planned renames, skipped projects, and name collisions. It could say more about how the tool behaves with large accounts or partial matches, but the safety and output behavior are well disclosed.

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 tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The safety-critical constraint ('NEVER renames anything') is front-loaded alongside the core purpose, and the alternative application path is stated immediately after.

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 read-only preview tool with no output schema, the description gives an agent enough to call it correctly: what it does, what it returns, that it is safe, and that applying changes happens outside the tool. The only minor gap is not explaining how the rename parameters combine, but the schema covers each parameter individually.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about how match, prefix, suffix, search, and replace interact, so it meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Preview a bulk project rename across the account') and clearly distinguishes this preview tool from the sibling mutation tool rename_project by emphasizing 'bulk' and 'preview.' An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 clearly establishes the context for use: previewing a bulk rename. It also states that applying the plan requires a human to run a terminal command, which is critical usage guidance. It does not explicitly name rename_project as the alternative for single renames, but the 'bulk' qualifier provides sufficient differentiation.

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