Rename Excalidraw project

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

The description discloses one behavioral aspect: the operation is conditional on the project revision being current, implying an optimistic concurrency check. However, it does not describe failure modes, side effects (e.g., whether the project is modified in place), or idempotency. Given no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but remains mostly opaque.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and object. It contains no extraneous words, qualifying clauses, or redundant information. The structure is highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool has five parameters, but the schema descriptions cover only two (40%). The description does not compensate for the missing parameter explanations, nor does it clarify the concurrency model or the purpose of mutationId. Since there is no output schema, the description could have hinted at the return value, but it remains silent. Overall, an agent would be left with significant uncertainty about how to correctly invoke this tool.

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?

The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides for projectPath and newProjectPath. It does not explain the roles of baseProjectRevision or mutationId, leaving their purpose unclear. With schema coverage at only 40%, the description does nothing to fill the gaps, making parameter semantics weak.

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 ('Renames') and the object ('a managed project'), making the core purpose unambiguous. The added condition 'when its project revision is current' introduces a specific requirement, which is useful but not strictly necessary for basic purpose clarity. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like rename_canvas, but the object type differs enough to avoid confusion.

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 such as create_project, duplicate_project, or rename_canvas. The description lacks any contextual advice, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is the preferred choice. Without this, an agent cannot determine when to invoke this tool over others.

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