eda_dmt_project_modify_project_friendly_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the operation modifies the friendly name and that the return value indicates success ('returns: 是否修改成功'). However, it omits prerequisites, permission requirements, failure semantics, or any side effects beyond the rename, which is a significant gap for a mutating 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 two compact lines with the signature front-loaded, followed by a direct Chinese explanation and return-value note. There is no filler or repeated boilerplate, and every sentence contributes parameter or behavior 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?

For a mutating function with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It gives the signature and boolean return but does not explain when to call it, how to obtain the projectUuid, what conditions must hold, or what a false return means in practice. An agent would need external knowledge to use it reliably.

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 schema's args array has empty item definitions and only says parameters follow official signature order, so the description's signature line adds essential meaning: projectUuid (string) and projectFriendlyName (string), in order. This lets an agent correctly construct the args array. It does not describe value constraints or UUID resolution, but the parameter names are self-explanatory.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'modifyProjectFriendlyName' or '修改工程友好名称' (modify project friendly name), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling project-modification tools like modify_project_description and modify_project_collaboration_mode. It also includes the function signature naming the two parameters. However, it mostly restates the tool name and doesn't explain what a 'friendly name' is or how it differs from the project's internal name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It doesn't mention that projectUuid can be obtained from a sibling like eda_dmt_project_get_all_projects_uuid, nor does it exclude alternatives such as modify_project_description or modify_project_collaboration_mode. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and signature.

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