patch_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'partially update' which implies mutation, but fails to mention idempotency, authorization needs, or what happens to omitted fields. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource, and includes API version context without unnecessary words. It is optimally concise.

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 simplicity (4 parameters, no output schema) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks behavioral context (idempotency, auth) that would make it complete for an API tool with no annotations.

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 100%, so base score is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions. The 'partially' context is already inherent in the tool name and description itself.

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?

Description clearly states the tool does a 'partial update' on a 'project', which specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes it from the full update (update_project) and create/delete siblings. The mention of 'Mautic 7 API v2' adds context.

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 word 'partially' implies usage for non-full updates, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus update_project or other alternatives. The description does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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