redmine_update_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains that omitted fields remain unchanged (partial update), returns the refreshed project, and honors the read-only mode. This provides good transparency without requiring additional detail.

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: a one-line summary, then a structured args list, and a return statement. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given 9 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers all essential aspects: what, how (partial), required param, optional fields, and return value. It lacks error information but is complete for typical usage. The read-only flag adds useful context.

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 the description must compensate. It provides a bullet list with concise explanations for all 9 parameters, including the type and special notes (e.g., parent_id '0 for unchanged'). This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'Update a project' and emphasizes partial updates. It lists the specific fields that can be updated, distinguishing it from create/delete tools. The purpose is unambiguous and directly addresses the tool's function.

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: partial update, only supplied fields are sent, and it requires project_id. It also mentions the read-only flag constraint. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools (e.g., update_issue), the context is sufficient for correct usage.

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