edit_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full burden. It only states 'edit' without specifying behavioral details like whether it performs a partial update or full replacement, what happens to unspecified fields, or any authentication or permissions needed.

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 short phrase, which is under-specified. It lacks structure and fails to include necessary usage or behavioral information, making it too terse rather than appropriately 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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or any side effects, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the schema itself provides their meanings. The tool description adds no extra context beyond what the schema offers, yielding an adequate baseline score.

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 '编辑项目信息' clearly states the verb 'edit' and the resource 'project information', matching the tool's name and function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_project_folder', leaving ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no indication of prerequisites, such as requiring the project to exist, or when not to use it.

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