update_project

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

The description adds the authorization requirement 'Requires structure rights,' which is not covered by the annotations. However, it does not explain open-world side effects or clarify whether the update is partial (only provided fields changed) or full (unspecified fields reset), leaving important behavior ambiguous.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated compactly. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The description covers the core operations and prerequisite, but it does not specify whether both fields can be updated in the same call or how missing/null values are treated. Given the openWorldHint annotation, additional detail on potential side effects would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptive coverage for all 3 parameters (100% coverage). The description restates the purpose of name and default_view but does not add new semantics, such as clarifying that fields are optional or how null is handled.

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 uses specific verbs 'Rename' and 'change' with the resource 'project (tab)' and explicitly names the two updatable aspects (name and default opening view). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like update_list or get_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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to rename a project or change its default view. It also notes a prerequisite, 'Requires structure rights,' which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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