memory_rename_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that the tool renames a project and optionally updates description, which implies mutation. No details on side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens to related data.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is structured efficiently, but could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'project' parameter, nor does it reference the output schema or any return values. For a task that involves identifying a project, this is a significant gap.

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%. The description mentions 'display_name' and 'description' but omits the 'project' parameter entirely. The 'project' parameter is optional and has default null, but no explanation is given for its purpose or how to identify the project. This leaves the agent unaware of a critical parameter.

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 verb 'Rename' and the resource 'project (its display name)'. It also mentions the optional description update. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'memory_update' which might also modify project attributes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., memory_update, memory_project_info). It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or recommendation.

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