update_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses partial update behavior and specifies allowed status values and date formats, adding value over the schema. However, it does not mention permission requirements, error behavior, or handling of null values, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the action, and uses a clear Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present to document return values, the description covers all parameters and key constraints. It lacks some context like prerequisites or error scenarios, but overall it's sufficiently complete for a focused 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section explains every parameter, providing meaningful details like status allowed values, date formats, and clarifying project_id as the identifier. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_project, get_project, and list_projects. The additional note 'Only the fields you provide will be changed' further clarifies the tool's partial update behavior.

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 implies use for updating existing projects but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like create_project or get_project. The partial update semantics are a useful usage note, but no exclusions or alternative mentions exist.

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