update_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a mutable but non-destructive update operation, which aligns with the description. The description adds value by stating the requirement for 'structure rights,' which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not discuss error states, partial update behavior, or what happens if the project_id doesn't exist. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise at two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and lists the key behavioral settings. The second sentence adds a critical prerequisite. Every sentence provides distinct value.

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 tool has 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, annotations for safety, and an output schema that would explain return values, the description covers the essential conceptual overview and a key prerequisite. The one gap is it doesn't explain the 'openWorldHint: true' annotation's implication (that the tool may have side effects outside the agent's knowledge), but this is an annotation already available to the agent. The description is sufficiently complete for an experienced agent.

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 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema itself. The tool description provides a useful high-level summary of the parameter categories ('default view, kind of task it creates, whether checklists open expanded'), which helps an agent understand the conceptual groupings. However, the description doesn't add specific syntax details, constraints, or non-obvious behaviors for individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. A score of 3 is appropriate per the baseline guidance for high schema coverage.

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 both major capabilities: renaming a project and changing its behavior settings (default view, task kind, checklist expansion). It uses specific verbs like 'Rename' and 'change how it behaves' which precisely describe the tool's action against the 'project' resource. The description effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_project, create_project, and list_projects.

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 explicitly states a requirement: 'Requires structure rights.' This provides direct guidance on when the tool can be used. While it doesn't explicitly list when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, the scope is well-defined, making it clear this is for updating existing project settings, not creating or deleting projects.

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