edit_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a useful behavioral note that this operation spends ElevenLabs credits, which is not captured in the annotations, but it omits permissions, reversibility, and side effects.

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 short and front-loads the action. It is efficient, though the second clause reads as an abrupt fragment and could be integrated more clearly.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites, how unspecified fields are handled, return behavior, or why an agent should choose this over edit_project_content.

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 adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. With 8 parameters and 63% schema description coverage, several fields such as title, author, and isbn_number lack schema descriptions, and the tool description does not compensate for that gap.

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 specific verb and resource: update a Studio Project. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely named siblings such as edit_project_content, add_project, or delete_project, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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, when not to use it, or which alternative sibling to choose. There is no usage context beyond the bare action.

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