update_project

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=false, indicating non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond this: partial updates and the ability to clear fields with an empty string. It does not mention permissions, return values, or error handling, but the mutation semantics are clearly disclosed.

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 concise sentences deliver all essential information with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides critical partial-update/clearing behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description covers the main contextual needs: what fields can be changed, that updates are partial, and how to clear values. It omits return value/error behavior, but given the low complexity and the presence of destructiveHint=false annotation, the description is largely complete. A more explicit mention of whether an updated project object or just a status is returned would push it to a 5.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by naming the three updatable fields (name, description, instructions) and clarifying their semantics: only passed fields are changed, and empty strings clear values. The required project_id is not described, but its role is implied by the tool name and schema, and the field-level semantics for the others are well explained.

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 begins with a specific action verb and resource: 'Change a project's name, description, or instructions.' It clearly distinguishes update_project from sibling CRUD tools like create_project, get_project, and delete_project by naming the exact mutable fields.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: updating existing projects, with a partial-update semantic ('Only the fields you pass are touched'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling tool names and 'change' verb make the use case obvious.

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