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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists updateable fields and lookup methods, but omits important details like permissions, reversibility, error handling (e.g., project not found), and whether partial updates are allowed. This is a mutation tool, so more transparency is expected.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (5 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema), and the description covers the core aspects: what it updates and how to identify the project. However, it does not disclose return values, error behavior, or handling of partial updates, which leaves some gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions. The description adds the relationship between project_name and project_id ('Find by name or ID') and groups the updateable fields, but it does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for well-documented 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a project'), and specifies the exact fields affected ('name, description, or links'). It distinguishes this tool from create_project and delete_project by focusing on modification, and the 'Find by name or ID' clarifies the targeting mechanism.

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 when to use the tool (to update an existing project) and provides a usage hint ('Find by name or ID'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks explicit guidance such as 'to create a project, use create_project'.

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