rename_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the action is queued, not immediate, and requires human confirmation, and points to where pending confirmations appear. It doesn't discuss permissions or reversibility, but for a queued operation, this level of disclosure is strong.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses two short paragraphs with clear separation of the primary action and the important caveat about queued confirmations, with no wasted words.

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 four parameters with zero schema coverage and no output schema explanation (though one exists), the description leaves the agent without guidance on parameter specifics. It also omits any prerequisites, such as whether the project must exist or whether the new slug must follow a format. For a tool with this complexity, the description is incomplete.

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%, and the description offers no explanation of the parameters (slug, new_slug, title, reason). While parameter names like 'new_slug' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify required vs. optional semantics or format expectations, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'Queue a project rename for human confirmation in /ui.' It specifies the verb (queue), the resource (project rename), and the target interface (/ui), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like upsert_project or delete_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?

It explicitly states when to use it: 'Use when the project identity should change.' It also provides a critical usage note that the rename is not applied immediately and directs to list_pending_actions for seeing queued confirmations, effectively giving both usage context and an alternative for checking status.

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