update_project_details

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

The description discloses replacement behavior for member/team lists and the use of clear_* flags, which are beyond what annotations provide. However, the openWorldHint annotation suggests possible side effects not addressed, and no permissions or transactional behavior are mentioned.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Efficiently provides essential parameter details. Could benefit from bullet points or grouping for easier scanning, but overall concise.

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 14 parameters, high complexity, and an openWorldHint annotation, the description is incomplete. It covers some parameter semantics but not enough for comprehensive use. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the open world hint is unaddressed.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains comma-separated format for member_ids and team_ids, date format, and replacement semantics. However, many parameters (icon, color, content, lead_id, priority, start_date, target_date, and the clear flags beyond general intent) are left unexplained.

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 resource ('project's detailed fields'). The verb is specific. The name includes 'detailed' which hints at a distinction from the sibling tool 'update_project', but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_project). No prerequisites or context provided. The description focuses on parameter format rather than usage context.

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