update_project

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already declare. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or impact on related data, even though annotations are sparse (e.g., openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and the tool is complex with 15 parameters.

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 extremely concise, at one sentence with no wasted words, but this under-specification is not appropriate for a tool with 15 parameters and complex behavior. It is front-loaded but lacks the detail needed to be genuinely useful, so it falls short of 'appropriately sized'.

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 15 parameters, 6 required ones, no output schema, and a complex domain, the description 'Edit a project' is grossly incomplete. It provides no information about required fields, return values, or operational behavior, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description 'Edit a project' contributes nothing to parameter understanding, while the input schema covers 73% of parameters with descriptions. Since schema coverage is below 80%, the description should compensate, but it does not mention any parameter or convey additional meaning 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 'Edit a project' clearly identifies the action (edit) and resource (project), and distinguishes this tool from sibling CRUD operations like create_project, delete_project, and get_project. However, it is generic and does not specify what properties or aspects of the project can be edited, relying on the schema for that detail.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_project or update_work_package. There is no mention of prerequisites, target use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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