Update Project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that only provided fields are changed, which is valuable. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., project not found), idempotency, or any side effects, leaving some uncertainty 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and key behavior with no filler or redundancy. Every part contributes to understanding the tool.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what it updates and the partial-update semantics. It does not cover edge cases like providing no fields beyond projectId, but the overall complexity is low and the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

While the schema already documents each parameter with descriptions, the phrase 'Only the fields you provide will be changed' adds important semantic meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that omitted optional parameters preserve their current values. This is a meaningful addition for parameter behavior.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with a clear resource ('existing ULink project') and names the exact fields ('name and/or default URL'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project (create vs update) and update_link (different resource type).

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 phrase 'existing ULink project' clearly indicates this tool is for modifying already-created projects, not creating new ones. It implies the alternative use of create_project for new projects, and the partial-update note provides practical usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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