whodb_platform_project_rename

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the default mode returns a confirmation token and the rename must be committed via whodb_platform_confirm after user approval. It does not mention permission requirements or what happens on slug conflicts, hence not a 5.

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 the action, and no filler. The second sentence bundles identifier semantics with the confirmation workflow, which slightly muddies the structure, but every clause carries information.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with a nested workspace object and an output schema, the description covers targeting, defaults precedence, and the two-phase confirm flow. Remaining gaps (permissions, slug-conflict behavior, whether the old name/slug is released) are modest given that annotations and the output schema carry the rest.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds interpretation beyond the schema by explaining that org exists for disambiguation and that workspace targets a single call without changing session defaults — semantics the schema alone only gestures at.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rename a hosted WhoDB project'), which is unambiguous against siblings such as whodb_platform_project_create or the generic whodb_platform_update. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it must be distinguished from, but the operation is clear on its face.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: how to pass the project identifier (id/slug/name), when org is needed (disambiguation), and a hard 'when not' — do not call whodb_platform_confirm until the user approves. The alternative tool is named and the condition that gates it is stated.

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