ds_rename_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only explains the optional description parameter's behavior ('keeps the existing one if omitted') but does not mention side effects of renaming, permissions required, or what happens on duplicate names or missing projects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a clear structured format for parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 is simple and the description covers purpose and parameters. However, it omits return values, error conditions, and any behavioral consequences of renaming. Without annotations or an output schema, this leaves the agent uncertain about the result of the operation, making it minimally complete but not fully contextual.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides clear meanings for all three parameters: old_name, new_name, and description (including optional behavior). This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states 'Rename a project' with a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ds_delete_project, ds_create_project, and ds_rename_resource by focusing on project renaming.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conflict-handling details. The name implies usage, but the description gives no explicit context or exclusions.

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