update_project

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 says 'Update a project.' and fails to disclose that this is a partial patch operation, whether the update is idempotent, what happens to unmentioned fields, required permissions, or the return value. 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 one sentence and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with an arbitrary patch object; while not bloated, it is not appropriately sized to convey necessary context. It is acceptable but lacks depth.

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 tool has a nested object parameter (patch), no output schema, and no annotations. The description is extremely incomplete: it does not explain the patch structure, the role of workspace_id, the return value, or any side effects. Given the moderate complexity and missing structured metadata, the description fails to provide a usable level of context.

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 describes workspace_id but leaves id and patch undocumented, and the description adds no parameter information. With schema coverage at only 33%, the description needed to explain the 'patch' object semantics (e.g., partial update, allowed fields) but does not. The description provides zero value beyond the 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 'Update a project.' clearly states the verb and resource, identifying it as a mutation tool for projects. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_agent or update_issue by naming the resource, but it lacks any additional specificity about what aspects of a project can be updated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_project or delete_project, or when to use workspace_id. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are provided. The tool name implies modifying an existing project, but the description offers no explicit usage direction.

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