Update project

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

Annotations assert readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds that at least one of name/domain must be provided, which is useful. However, it doesn't state whether the operation is destructive to unspecified fields (e.g., does omitting name keep it unchanged?), whether partial updates are supported, or whether idempotency_key governs retry behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and constraint. Efficient and clean.

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?

For a moderately simple mutation tool with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it doesn't mention what the response returns (updated project vs null), whether domain uniqueness is enforced, or retry/idempotency semantics. Adequate for a simple update but not fully self-sufficient.

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 only 25% (project_id is described), leaving name, domain, and idempotency_key undocumented in the schema. The description compensates somewhat by clarifying name/domain are the updatable fields and that at least one is required, but it doesn't explain idempotency_key semantics or the domain/name format constraints beyond what the schema enum-less maxLength already provides. The description adds marginal value but doesn't fully cover the schema gaps.

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 verb-resource pair ('Update a project's name or domain') and explicitly scopes what can be updated. It distinguishes from delete_project and get_project among siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 when to use it (modifying existing project metadata) and states the 'at least one required' constraint, but does not explicitly contrast against create_project or list_projects, nor state when NOT to use it. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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