Update an existing project in the anonymous session
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | The display name of the project | |
| slug | No | The URL slug for the project (used in URLs) | |
| is_public | No | Whether the project is public or private | |
| session_id | Yes | The anonymous session ID | |
| project_slug | Yes | The slug of the project to update | |
| overview_content | No | Markdown content for the project overview |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing partial vs full replacement, error behavior, or return value. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.
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 contains no redundant information. It is concise and well-structured.
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?
With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description leaves out critical context such as partial update behavior, session requirements, and error conditions. It is not complete enough for a CRUD update 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, justifying the baseline score of 3.
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 updates an existing project, using the specific verb 'Update' and resource 'existing project'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_project and 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?
No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over create_project or how it differs from update_tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct, targeting specific resources (projects, data sources, tools) and actions (add, create, delete, update). Slight overlap exists between toggle_tool and update_tool, and between add_data_source and add_tool, but descriptions clarify the differences.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as add_data_source, create_project, delete_tool, and reorder_steps. No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
13 tools is within the ideal range for a project management server. Each tool serves a clear purpose in managing projects, data sources, tools, and sessions, without unnecessary redundancy.
Core CRUD operations are covered for projects and tools, with additional operations like reorder and toggle. Minor gaps exist: data sources lack an update operation, and there's no explicit list/get for tools or data sources, but project details likely cover this.
