Rename project

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

Annotations already indicate a write, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the display name and slug are updated atomically, uniqueness is validated within the org, editor/owner role is required, and the new slug is returned. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the key behavioral effects and the access requirement. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, side effects, validation, return value, and required role. The org default is already explained in the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 already describes all three parameters at 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the name parameter drives both the display name and URL slug, and that uniqueness is checked in the org, which clarifies the effect of the name parameter beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action and resource ('Rename a project') and adds distinctive behavioral details: updating display name and URL slug together, checking uniqueness, and returning the new slug. This clearly differentiates it from broad tools like update_project.

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 intended use is implied by the action ('rename'), and the role requirement is explicit. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as update_project or check_project_name, nor state when to prefer this tool over them.

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