arcane_update_project

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior, but it only states that an update occurs. It does not explain whether the update is a full replace or partial merge, whether it affects running containers, what happens to unspecified settings, or any destructive implications. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation 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 short sentence, which is under-specification rather than concise clarity. It omits essential context and parameter details, making it more of a placeholder than a useful tool description.

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?

For a tool with six parameters, two required, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how the update behaves, leaving the agent without enough information to safely invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero information about the six parameters (e.g., name, path, gitRepoId, composeFile, environmentId, projectId). The only hint is that the project is existing and compose-related, leaving the agent to guess what each field does and how they relate to the update operation.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and the target resource ('existing Docker Compose project'), making it easy to distinguish from basic create/delete operations. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar project lifecycle operations like redeploy or deploy, so it doesn't fully separate itself from siblings.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_project, deploy_project, or redeploy_project. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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