Refine a project with a new instruction

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

The description reveals key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it 'triggers a follow-up build' and notes the backend may decide it's 'code-only edit', implying conditional behavior. However, it does not clarify whether the tool is idempotent or what happens if called repeatedly.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy, but slightly more could be packed into the first sentence for quicker understanding.

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 that output schema and annotations are limited, the description covers key behavioral aspects (triggers build, conditional code-only edit). It could mention what happens if wait is true/false more explicitly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little extra meaning. It mentions 'refinement message' linking to the 'message' parameter context, but otherwise the schema already explains the 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?

The description clearly states it 'send[s] a refinement message' to a project, with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create or get projects.

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 the tool triggers a build, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others (e.g., create_project), nor does it provide alternative guidance or exclusions.

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