Runn: update project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the PATCH method and partial-update semantics, which is helpful. However, it lacks any mention of side effects, required authentication, idempotency, or return behavior, leaving notable gaps 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a key behavioral note. There is zero waste or 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?

Given the complexity of 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It provides only the partial-update semantic and does not explain return values, parameter usage, or any operational context, making it inadequate for effective use.

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%, and the description adds no explanation for any of the 12 parameters. The field names and types in the schema are the only guidance, which is insufficient for correctly invoking the tool, especially for ambiguous enums like rateType and pricingModel.

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 a project') and the resource (project), and includes the specific HTTP method and path (PATCH /projects/{id}). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like runn_create_project, runn_get_project, and runn_list_projects.

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 phrase 'Only provided fields change' provides clear context that this is a partial update tool, which helps the agent understand when to use it versus a full replacement or create. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state conditions for non-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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