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

The annotations already indicate this is not read-only and is not marked destructive, and the description does not contradict them. It adds no detail beyond describing what fields are updated, such as whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether it is a partial update, or what the response looks like.

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 one short sentence and immediately communicates the operation and its key targets. Every word adds value, and there is no filler or unnecessary duplication of the schema.

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?

This is a simple tool with no output schema, no enums, and no nested objects, so the description is close to adequate. However, important operational details remain implicit, such as how projectId is required, possible status values, and whether this is a merge-style update or a full replacement.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry more weight. It does list name, description, and status as updateable fields, but it does not clarify the projectId requirement, valid status values, or how the optional fields interact with each other.

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 states a clear action ('update a project') and identifies the exact fields that can be changed: name, description, or status. It is easily distinguished from get/create/list siblings at the verb level, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those tools.

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 tool name and description together imply it should be used when an existing project's name, description, or status needs to change. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of create_project/get_project/list_projects' guidance or any mention of when not to use it.

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