rename_project_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the action ('renames') and a side-effect context (the duplicate_sequence naming issue), but does not disclose potential limitations, error conditions, or return behavior. It is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, about 30 words, with the core action in the first sentence and a practical use note in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states the purpose, the target resource types, and a specific usage context. The sibling tool list provides enough surrounding context to understand when this tool is needed.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter constraints or relationships beyond what is already in the schema, earning the baseline score.

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 tool's function: 'Renames a project item (sequence, bin, clip) by setting its name.' This provides a specific verb and resource, and explicitly enumerates the item types, distinguishing it from siblings like rename_track or rename_bin.

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 gives a concrete usage scenario: 'Use this when duplicate_sequence does not propagate the new name to the project panel.' This advises when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternative tools for renaming clips/bins/tracks directly, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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