rename a sync project

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses the blast radius ("visibility, owner, media and generations stay as they are"), the failure mode (404 for missing, deleted or inaccessible project), and the pre-condition gate that can reject the call. Those are exactly the behavioral facts annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences: scope first, then the selection rule, then the operational gotcha. No filler. Minor deduction because the projectIntent guidance tracks the schema's own wording closely enough that it partly repeats structured data rather than adding new signal.

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 low-complexity, flat 3-parameter mutation with an output schema present, everything an agent needs is covered: what changes, what does not, when to call it, when not to, the rejection condition, and the error case. Return values are mentioned but the real detail lives in the output schema, which is the right division of labor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a consequence the schema does not state: omitting or guessing projectIntent "can be refused with PROJECT_INTENT_REQUIRED." That turns a const field into an actionable requirement. The remaining content largely restates the schema's own projectId and projectIntent text, so it stops short of 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Rename one existing project") plus precise scope ("you can access in the current organization") and the exact field affected ("only the name changes"). It distinguishes itself from the sibling projects_create by naming it as the destination for new work, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when ("only when the user explicitly asks to rename that project") and an explicit when-not ("never because its name or workflow matches the request or its editor is open"), and names the alternative tool (projects_create) for the excluded case. This is about as complete a selection rule as a description can carry.

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