Update projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions soft-delete but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, reactivation, or required permissions. Minimal information beyond the listed actions.

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?

A single sentence with parenthetical enumeration conveys the key functions concisely. No unnecessary words, and the core verb and scoping are front-loaded.

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 complexity (4 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the primary use cases but lacks details on response format, error handling, or examples. It is adequate but not comprehensive for an agent unfamiliar with Yougile.

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 75%, and the description adds meaning by mapping 'rename' to title, 'change members' to users, and 'soft-delete' to the deleted boolean. However, it does not elaborate on value formats or constraints, leaving the schema to handle most details.

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 that the tool updates a project, specifying the exact actions: rename (title), change members (users), or soft-delete (deleted). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, get, list by focusing on modification.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or list. The description implies it is for updating existing projects, but does not provide context such as prerequisites or scenarios where other tools are more appropriate.

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