rename_project

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the owner-only restriction, the 404 behavior for non-owned projects, and the important default-folder behavior after renaming. It does not mention the return value or side effects beyond that, but the key mutation behaviors are covered.

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 front-loaded with ownership and key caveats, followed by a clear Args section. Each sentence adds useful context, though the team-members example could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the critical context: who can rename, what error to expect, and what happens to the default folder. Missing return behavior is a minor gap, not a blocker.

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. It gives one-line explanations for both parameters, but 'project_id' and 'name' largely restate the schema titles. The only genuinely new information is 'see list_projects' and the word 'display' for the name, which is moderate compensation but not detailed.

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 starts with 'Rename a project you OWN,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and ownership constraint. It is distinct from the sibling rename_model, so an agent can tell this tool is for projects, not models.

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 provides clear context: owner-only access, 404 for projects you don't own, and a note that renaming the default folder is safe. It doesn't explicitly contrast with rename_model or say when not to use this tool, but 'see list_projects' gives a useful pointer for obtaining the correct project_id.

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