pvsyst_update_project_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does it well: dry_run returns the candidate file map and diff without writes, repeated names are no-ops, only changed PRJ bytes are replaced while VC bytes/timestamps/file IDs stay intact, BOM changes affect whole-file decoding, and it is explicitly optimistic conflict checking rather than locking.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, opening with the scope and the filename-preservation invariant before constraints. Nearly every sentence adds operational value (BOM, dry_run, restore, no-ops); it is long but justified by the tool's complexity.

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 complex, annotation-free, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers preconditions, side effects, reversibility (backups map), and edge cases. It stops short of describing the dry_run diff output shape in detail, but gives enough for an agent to call it safely.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate: it explains project_name's 1..80 printable UTF-8 byte constraint, dry_run's return behavior, and add_utf8_bom semantics. expected_files is only implied via 'the full hash map from inspect_project' and the project param's identity is lightly covered.

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 a specific verb and resource: editing an existing project's display title only, preserving PRJ/VC filenames. It explicitly distinguishes itself from filename-based naming and from sibling mutation tools (update_project_sources, update_variant_parameters) by listing what it does not touch.

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?

Gives strong preconditions: requires an existing owning header Comment, complete recognized PRJ syntax, and the full hash map from inspect_project; close a loaded GUI project before editing and re-inspect after GUI saves; restore via restore_project_sources. It doesn't explicitly enumerate alternative siblings for related edits, but the workflow context is clear.

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