planka_update_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a project' indicates mutation, but it does not clarify whether the update is partial or full, whether the project must already exist, what side effects occur, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response shape is. This is a significant gap 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 short and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, it is under-specified to the point of being terse: the 'id + fields' fragment saves words but sacrifices necessary clarity, so the conciseness comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque nested fields object, the description should provide substantially more context. It lacks any reference to allowed field names, response behavior, error conditions, or relationships with sibling project tools. As it stands, the tool definition is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. 'id + fields' merely echoes the schema's property names and provides little semantic value: it does not explain what the fields object should contain, how fields are formatted, or how partial updates behave. An agent cannot confidently construct a valid fields argument from this text.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('a project'), so an agent can tell it apart from read_project, create_project, and delete_project. It does not, however, specify what aspects of a project can be updated beyond the vague 'fields', so it stops short of a fully rich purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_project, read_project, or delete_project. The only context is 'id + fields', which is a requirement signal, not a usage guideline; it does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.

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