update-projects

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the generic 'update'—it does not explain whether this is a partial update (only provided fields are changed) or a full replacement, nor what happens to non-existent projects or if the operation is atomic.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the verb, object, and scope immediately, making it easy for an agent to grasp the tool's purpose in one glance.

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 bulk update operation with nested objects, the description is incomplete. It omits crucial behavioral semantics such as partial vs. full updates, behavior for missing IDs, whether the operation fails entirely or partially, and any preconditions. The schema covers parameter syntactics, but the description leaves execution semantics unclear.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for every property, including the color enum, null handling for description, and the structure of the projects array. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema richness; baseline 3 applies.

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 action 'Update multiple existing projects', with specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from add-projects by mentioning 'existing' and from project-move by focusing on updates.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'existing' implies it is for updating, not creating, but there are no prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or references to sibling tools like find-projects or add-projects.

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