update_project

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'update properties' without disclosing idempotency, error handling (e.g., if project not found), or whether it's a partial or full update. No mention of permissions or 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 a single short sentence, making it concise. However, it could be improved by front-loading key info like partial update or required fields. Still efficient with no wasted words.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention that only 'id' is required, that others are optional, or that updates are partial. It also doesn't specify return value or error behavior. Incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No clarification on optionality beyond schema required field.

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 the tool updates properties of an existing project, using a specific verb ('update') and resource ('project'). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_project, delete_project, complete_project, drop_project, and move_project.

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 implies usage for modifying project properties but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like complete_project (for finishing) or drop_project (for canceling). There is no when-not-to-use or context for partial updates.

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