bort_project_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the partial-update semantics (only changed fields are sent), which is genuinely useful and not inferable from the schema alone. It says nothing about required permissions, what happens when the identifier is missing, error behavior, or irreversibility of the mutation.

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?

A single compact parenthetical sentence with no filler, and the core action plus the identifier caveat are front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification.

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 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits field-level meaning, identifier requirements, and any behavior on partial failure, so an agent cannot confidently construct a call for anything beyond the identifier.

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% across 11 parameters; the schema supplies only titles, so the description must compensate. It clarifies only the identifier mechanism (project_id or name) and the partial-update rule; the other nine fields (notes, status, currency, deadline, priority, dates, deal amounts) and the distinction between deal_amount and deal_amount_minor are left entirely undocumented.

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 clear verb+resource ('Обновить проект'), which distinguishes it from bort_project_list/get/create siblings. It also names the identifier options (project_id or name). No further sibling differentiation (e.g., vs bort_project_summary) is given, but the update verb is 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 phrase 'передаются только изменяемые поля' implicitly tells the agent this is a partial/PATCH-style update and that unset fields may be omitted, which is useful call-shaping guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note on whether the identifier is required given 0 required parameters.

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