Rename a project across all linked tasks and records; rejects names already used by another project to prevent accidental merges. Requires permission to change tasks.
Rename a project everywhere it is used. Refuses a name another project already has, so two projects are never merged by accident. Needs permission to change tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The new name. | |
| project | Yes | The current name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the global rename effect, the conflict rule (refuses a name another project already has, preventing accidental merges), and an auth requirement ('needs permission to change tasks'). It does not mention reversibility or whether the old name becomes available, which keeps it from 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two most decision-relevant constraints. No filler; every sentence 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?
No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior, and it addresses scope, conflict handling, and permissions. It stops short of describing the return value or failure modes beyond duplicate names, a minor gap for a simple two-parameter mutation.
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% with both parameters documented ('current name', 'new name'), so the schema already explains the inputs. The description adds no naming format, uniqueness, or length constraints beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (rename) and resource (project) and clarifies the scope as 'everywhere it is used', which distinguishes it from add_project, delete_project, and restore_project in the sibling set. An agent can tell what this 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?
The description implies the context (renaming an existing project) and states the permission prerequisite, but never explicitly says when to use this versus alternatives like add_project or delete_project, nor names any when-not conditions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.