update_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses critical behavioral details: group_id uses V2 internally with a read-modify-write pattern to avoid wiping other fields, and V1 responses return groupId=null, requiring full_sync() for verification. These are beyond basic input schema expectations.

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 well-organized with a clear purpose sentence, parameter list, and two warning blocks. It is somewhat lengthy due to the warnings, but every sentence adds value. The structure front-loads the core action, then details parameters and caveats. Minor redundancy in the parameter list could be tightened.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameter behaviors, side effects (group_id internal V2 logic), verification needs (full_sync), and auth differences (V1 vs V2). No critical gaps are apparent for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains every parameter with concrete examples (color: Hex color, kind: 'TASK' or 'NOTE', view_mode: 'list', 'kanban', or 'timeline'). It also adds behavioral semantics for group_id (read-modify-write) and closed (archive/unarchive). This far exceeds minimal parameter info.

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?

Clearly states 'Update an existing project' with the verb 'update' and resource 'project'. The phrase 'Only provided fields are changed' distinguishes it from create/delete operations. Sibling tools like create_project and delete_project are explicitly listed in the Related section, aiding differentiation.

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?

Includes a [Related] list with direct alternatives (get_project_detail, create_project, etc.) and mentions auth requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., when to use update_project vs batch_update_tasks). The implicit guidance is clear but lacks explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' language.

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