ticktick_update_project

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (indicating mutation), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal context beyond them—it specifies 'existing project's properties,' implying the need for a pre-existing project. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified properties. With annotations covering core safety, the description adds some value but could be more informative.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update an existing project's properties'), making it easy to scan. Every part of the sentence serves a purpose, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 1 parameter but nested properties), annotations cover safety aspects (non-destructive, idempotent), and there's an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere). However, the description lacks details on parameter semantics and usage context. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps, especially with 0% schema description coverage and no sibling differentiation.

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%, meaning no parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'properties' generically but doesn't detail specific parameters like project_id, name, color, etc. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate more but only provides a high-level overview, resulting in a baseline score.

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 'Update an existing project's properties' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (project), but it's vague about what specific properties can be updated. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like ticktick_update_folder or ticktick_update_task, which have similar update operations on different resources. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new projects, which is ticktick_create_project), or how it differs from other update tools in the sibling list. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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