project_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait — the style bible is 'merged field by field' rather than replaced wholesale. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or whether omitted fields are preserved, leaving a real gap 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?

One sentence with no filler, and the mutable fields are front-loaded. Slightly cryptic phrasing ('merged field by field' in parentheses) but every clause carries meaning.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, four parameters, one nested object, and only 25% schema coverage needs substantially more description. Merge semantics, reset behavior, and the meaning of clearing values are left unaddressed.

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% and nested objects are present. The description restates the top-level targets but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the word 'locked' for palette. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (change/update) and enumerates the three mutable resources: style bible, pixel settings, and locked palette. An agent can distinguish this from project_get (read) and project_create, though the sibling relationship is implied by the name only.

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 when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The description never says this requires an existing project or when to prefer project_create instead, leaving the agent to infer everything from the name.

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