update_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses in-place, non-destructive updates, partial update behavior, and support for batching via list. It does not mention error handling or permissions, but covers core behavioral traits well.

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 well-structured: a concise purpose sentence, a usage guideline, clearly labeled Args with bullet-like formatting, and two illustrative examples. Every sentence contributes useful information 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?

Covers purpose, usage, full parameter detail, and examples. An output schema exists, so return values are presumably already documented. It lacks error-condition details, but for a batch update tool, this is sufficiently 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 is bare (0% description coverage), so the description fully documents the 'projects' parameter: required project_id, optional name, color, view_mode, and kind, including enum values and an example hex code. This adds substantial meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states 'Update one or more existing projects in place (without deleting them)', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_project and delete_projects by emphasizing the 'in place' and 'without deleting' aspects.

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?

Explicitly recommends 'Use this instead of delete-then-recreate to avoid losing the tasks inside a project', providing a clear alternative and rationale. Also explains partial update semantics ('Only the fields you provide are changed; omitted fields keep their current value'), which guides correct usage.

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