update_project

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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint: true. The description does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, idempotency, or potential side effects. Given minimal annotation coverage, the description should compensate but fails to provide necessary behavioral context.

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 concise with two sentences, but the first sentence is front-loaded with the action. However, the structure could be improved by explicitly mapping each parameter to its description, which would reduce ambiguity.

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 parameters, 1 required, 0% schema coverage, and many sibling tools), the description is insufficient. It does not cover the output, constraints, or relationships with other tools, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain all parameters. It partially explains 'state' with acceptable values, but misnames 'description' as 'summary' and omits the 'name' parameter's semantics. Only 2 out of 4 parameters are addressed, and one is incorrect.

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 tool updates a project's name, summary, or status, specifying the verb and resource. However, there is a slight inconsistency: 'summary' is mentioned but the schema contains 'description' instead. This may cause confusion, but the overall purpose is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., update_project_details, create_project). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when to avoid using it. This leaves the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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