update-projects

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

The annotation already indicates destructiveHint: true, and the description's word 'update' implies modification without adding further detail. No contradiction exists, but the description does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., whether missing fields are reset, auth requirements, or irreversible effects). Since annotations provide the core safety info, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It communicates the core function efficiently without redundant information.

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?

While the schema provides detailed field descriptions, the tool description lacks context on return values (though an output schema exists) and does not explain partial update semantics or any side effects. It is minimal but functional, leaving some ambiguity about the exact behavior of the update operation.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning. The baseline is 3 because the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation. The description does not clarify edge cases like the necessity of 'color' or behavior of omitted optional fields.

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 multiple existing projects with new values.' It specifies the resource (projects) and that it's a batch update (multiple). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools, the resource type is unambiguous, making the purpose clear.

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 usage is implied: if you need to update existing projects, this tool is appropriate, as opposed to add-projects or update-sections. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or constraints.

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