update_project_estimate

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

Annotations already indicate that this tool is a safe mutation (idempotent, not destructive). The description adds the list of updatable fields (name, description, external_id, external_source) which is useful. However, it does not clarify behavior like partial updates, validation, or error cases. No contradiction.

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 concise: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a structured list of arguments and the return type. Every element is informative and no extraneous text.

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 description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics. The output schema is present, so return structure is documented elsewhere. However, it lacks usage guidelines, prerequisites, and behavioral details like partial update behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It provides one-line explanations for each parameter, adding meaning beyond type/nullability. For example, it clarifies that 'external_id' is an 'External system identifier' and 'external_source' is 'External system source name'. However, it lacks details like validation rules or format constraints.

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 explicitly states the action 'Update the estimate for a project', which is a specific verb+resource. Among siblings, there are separate tools for creating, deleting, and getting estimates, so this tool's purpose is clear and distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_project_estimate or delete_project_estimate. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the estimate must already exist) or conditions under which updating is appropriate.

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