penpot_rename_project

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

No annotations provided. The description only states 'rename' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions required, or whether the operation is reversible. Lacks behavioral detail.

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 very brief (one sentence), which is concise but under-specified. It is not wasteful but lacks essential details that could be added without exceeding typical length.

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 the simplicity (2 required params, no enums, no output schema), the description could still be more complete. It does not mention return value, success/failure conditions, or any constraints like name uniqueness. Incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 has two parameters with only minLength constraints and no descriptions. Schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter names, so the agent has no guidance on what valid inputs are.

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 action 'Rename' and the target resource 'existing Penpot project'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like penpot_rename_file and penpot_create_project. However, it does not specify the scope or any unique aspects.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like penpot_create_project or penpot_rename_file. No prerequisites or context for invoking the rename operation.

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