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 behavioral burden. 'Update an existing project' implies mutation but does not disclose whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared (partial vs full replace), what permissions are required, whether the operation is reversible, or anything about the response.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence is a useful pointer rather than padding, though it is not strictly necessary for invocation.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: parameters are fully covered by the schema and a pre-read workflow is suggested. It stops short of describing partial-update behavior or side effects, which an agent would need to call this safely.

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% with 4 clearly described parameters (id, name, project_type_id, project_manager_id), so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing Productive.io project'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like productive_update_task, though the naming convention makes the target resource unambiguous.

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 sentence 'Use productive_get_project first to see current values' gives a concrete pre-requisite workflow step, which is implied usage guidance. It does not say when to choose this over alternatives or what conditions make an update appropriate versus creating a new project.

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