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

The description adds one behavioral detail: 'Only the fields you provide are changed.' This indicates partial update semantics. However, there are no annotations to provide additional context like permissions, idempotency, or side effects. The description is adequate but leaves some traits unaddressed.

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 consists of two short sentences with no wasted words. The key information (what the tool does and the partial update behavior) is front-loaded and clear.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential purpose and update behavior. Missing are prerequisites like required permissions or what happens if the project does not exist, but for a simple update tool it is mostly complete.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description augments the schema by clarifying the partial update behavior, which adds meaning beyond individual parameter descriptions. It explains that only provided fields are updated, which is key for correct usage.

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 verb "Update" and the resource "project", specifying the updatable fields (name and/or description). It distinguishes from create_project and delete_project siblings by implying it modifies an existing project rather than creating or deleting.

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 description implies this tool is for updating existing project fields, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like create_project or when not to use it (e.g., no prerequisites or cases where other tools are preferred). The guidance is minimal.

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