Rename a project

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it performs a bulk update of all memories under a project label, returns the count of re-labelled memories, and includes an edge-case no-op. Annotations only indicate mutation and open-world semantics, so this is valuable added context.

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-loading the action and then adding necessary details in two sentences. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, bulk behavior, prerequisite, return value, and no-op case.

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 rename tool, the description covers all essential context: what happens, prerequisites, return value, and edge case. No output schema exists, so the description properly takes on the responsibility of explaining the return value.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (name must exist, new_name format). The description adds a bit of nuance by clarifying the bulk-update behavior tied to 'name', but it mostly reiterates schema information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Rename a project') and specifies the exact operation: bulk-update every memory labelled 'name' to 'new_name'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_memory_project by describing the rename behavior, and even notes the no-op condition.

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?

Clear context is provided: the source project must exist, and renaming to the same name is a no-op. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different scenarios, it implicitly guides usage by explaining the rename semantics.

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