Update Project

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds that the updated project object is returned, which is useful behavioral information. No contradictions with annotations, but no additional details on side effects or error handling.

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 three short sentences, each adding meaningful information: purpose, partial-update behavior, and return value. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition, ideal for a tool with a well-documented schema.

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 the 11-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers essential use context (partial updates, return object). Field-level details are already in the schema. It lacks notes on field interactions or error conditions, but this is not critical for a straightforward update tool.

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?

All 11 parameters have individual descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a key semantic beyond the schema: only supplied fields are changed, implying unspecified parameters retain their current values. This is valuable agent guidance for constructing the request.

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 the action: 'Update fields on an existing project.' It specifies the resource (project) and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project or delete_project. The partial-update instruction ('Only supply the fields you want to change') further clarifies scope.

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 a clear usage guideline: 'Only supply the fields you want to change', signaling that this is a partial update and the agent need not send all fields. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives like update_task, but for a generic update tool, this is sufficient context.

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