board_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 behavioral traits like valid status transitions (active→paused, etc.) and the effect of passing null to description/metadata (clearing them). It also implies that archiving removes clutter from the active list. However, it doesn't mention permissions, reversibility of actions, or whether updates trigger side effects.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. The first sentence states what it does, the second gives usage scenarios, and the third clarifies null handling. No extraneous information, every sentence 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?

Given the 6 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the key functionality and clarifies important behaviors like status transitions and null semantics. However, it doesn't mention that project_id is required (though the schema lists it) or describe the response after a successful update. Still, it provides enough context for the agent to use the tool effectively.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds minimal extra nuance beyond summarizing the purpose. It reiterates the null behavior for description and metadata, but the schema already covers that. Therefore, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 updates a project's status, priority, name, description, or metadata. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on project-specific fields and providing concrete examples like pausing, archiving, and reranking priority.

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 gives explicit usage scenarios: pausing projects on hold, archiving completed ones, and reranking priority during weekly reviews. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or directly compare with siblings, the context is clear and actionable.

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