update_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that only provided fields are changed (partial update), but does not explain error conditions, authentication requirements (though api_key parameter exists), or what happens on invalid inputs. Basic transparency but lacks depth.

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?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded with action and purpose. No redundant or unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a clear role.

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 simple update operation with 4 parameters (1 required) and existing output schema, the description covers the core functionality. However, it omits any mention of error handling or confirmation of the update, which would be useful for completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the detail that only provided fields are changed, which slightly enriches parameter semantics, but does not go beyond what the schema already describes for each parameter.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'a project', specifying the fields that can be changed (name and/or description). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and get projects.

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 implies usage for updating a project's metadata but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling tools provide context, but no direct guidance is given.

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