uselink_rename_project_slug

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one key behavioral trait: the old slug stops resolving immediately. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, validation (e.g., slug uniqueness), or other side effects. Partial transparency but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description gives a clear purpose and one behavioral note, but lacks usage guidelines, parameter details, and error/response information. For a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, it is insufficient for an agent to fully understand implications and prerequisites.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explicitly explain the parameters. The action implies 'id' refers to the project and 'new_slug' is the desired slug, but no format constraints, examples, or additional semantics are provided.

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 action 'Rename a project's URL slug' with a specific resource. It also notes a consequence ('old slug stops resolving immediately'), which adds context and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_url_handle or check_project_slug.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention checking slug availability first, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not. The description only states what it does and a consequence.

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