update_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Update project properties,' which largely restates the mutation implied by the name; it does not state whether updates are partial, require ownership or permissions, take effect immediately, or what is returned. No contradiction with annotations, but no value added beyond the verb.

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 focused sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and a compact enumeration of the updatable fields. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a standard partial-update tool: one required project_id plus fully documented optional fields, so invocation is inferable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the lack of behavioral detail (success semantics, permissions, partial vs full update) leaves the description thinner than ideal for a mutating 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds marginal value by grouping the TTS-related properties and signaling which fields are updatable, but it supplies no format or constraint details beyond the schema. The baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update') and resource ('project properties') and enumerates the modifiable fields (title, description, TTS provider, voice, language, speaking rate), covering essentially all settable parameters. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from create_project, get_project, and update_slide.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions that create_project is for new projects, get_project for reading, or how update_project relates to update_slide. No conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites are given.

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