update_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that updates are partial and returns { ok: true }, but fails to specify what happens on error, permission requirements, or that parameters are missing from schema.

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 short and front-loaded, but the claim about required fields is inaccurate due to the empty schema. It is concise but not reliable.

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?

The description is incomplete for an update tool: no list of updatable fields, no response details beyond success case, and no explanation of the missing parameters in the schema. The mismatch with schema undermines completeness.

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 zero properties, yet the description implies parameters like 'project_id' and additional fields. This contradiction makes the parameter guidance misleading, despite the schema having 100% coverage (trivially).

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 'Update an existing Kanboard project (partial update)', giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project or delete_project, but does not contrast with other update tools like update_column.

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 mentions a requirement that 'at least one field besides project_id must be provided', but no such parameters exist in the input schema. No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_task or update_swimlane.

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