project_guidelines_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that guidelines are stored and visible in the UI, but does not address permissions, side effects, overwrite behavior, or request/response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the full implications of invoking the tool.

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 three sentences long, with the first sentence immediately stating the action. Every sentence adds necessary information (update purpose, storage/UI visibility, automatic project linking). No redundant or verbose phrasing.

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's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, data format, storage location, and default behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to understand and correctly invoke the tool.

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 the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds 'markdown' and 'stored in backend' context, but these are largely redundant with the schema's description field. Thus, the description provides marginal additional value, meeting the baseline for high 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 the tool updates project-specific guidelines in markdown format. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'project_guidelines_get' which is for retrieval, making the purpose 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 description explains that the tool automatically uses the linked project if no projectId is provided, which is helpful usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the purpose is self-evident given the sibling tools.

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