bdesign_project_update

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing optimistic-concurrency semantics (revision check), an ownership validation rule for manual covers, and the deterministic auto-cover resolution order (first image, then local video poster). Minor friction: it calls the value 'settingsRevision' while the parameter is 'expectedRevision', and it doesn't say what a revision mismatch does or what the call returns.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences covering purpose, precondition, and constraints with little waste. 'Through the shared revision-checked command kernel' is internal jargon that costs more than it conveys.

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 mutation with a nested patch, no output schema, and only safety annotations, the description covers the critical hazards: revision preconditioning, asset ownership, and cover fallback. It omits patch merge semantics (are unset fields preserved?) and idempotency/commandId usage, which an agent would benefit from.

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 carry the load. It meaningfully explains patch.name/description/cover, the cover mode behaviors, and expectedRevision's source, but leaves commandId, idempotencyKey, and projectId completely unexplained. Useful but incomplete compensation for a 5-parameter nested 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?

States a specific verb (update) plus the exact resource and mutable fields (project name, short description, cover), and identifies the mechanism (shared revision-checked command kernel). It is clearly distinct from the sibling read/create tools (project_get, project_create) without ambiguity.

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 a concrete prerequisite workflow: fetch settingsRevision from project_get before calling. It also constrains the manual cover case (coverAssetId must belong to the project). No explicit when-not guidance or alternative tool for cover-only changes, so not a 5.

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