update_project_entry

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

Description indicates mutation ('Update an existing') and implies no upsert by saying 'existing'. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or behavior of unspecified fields, and no annotations exist to fill the gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action verb. Efficient and scannable.

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 6-param tool without annotations or output schema, description provides core operation and scope but omits return value, error handling, and guidance on non-existent entries. Minimal viable but not comprehensive.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline 3 applies. Description adds marginal value by enumerating editable fields but doesn't elaborate on how entry_id is obtained or project_path usage.

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?

States clearly it updates an existing project hive entry, with specific editable fields (query, solution, category). The scope limitation 'not global hivemind KB' distinguishes it from broader KB tools.

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?

Provides an explicit scope exclusion: 'Only works for project entries (not global hivemind KB)'. However, it does not name alternatives like contribute_project or delete_project_entry, nor does it state when to prefer this over them.

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