redmine_project_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Update' and the PUT endpoint. It does not state whether fields are replaced or merged, what permissions are required, what happens on invalid IDs, or what response is returned. This is thin for a mutating operation.

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 one clean, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and includes both the action and endpoint. Its brevity reflects missing guidance rather than deliberate economy, but structurally it is tight and easy to scan.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested payload object, the description is too sparse: an agent knows the endpoint but not which project fields are updatable, whether the update is partial or full, or what authorization is needed. More context is required for correct invocation.

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?

The schema documents 'id' but the 'project' object is an opaque additionalProperties container with no field descriptions, so coverage is only 50%. The description adds no meaning to either parameter and does not list which project fields can be updated, leaving an agent to guess the payload shape.

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 states a specific action ('Update project') and the exact endpoint (PUT /projects/:id.json), which clearly identifies both the resource and operation. Among siblings like redmine_project_create, archive, unarchive, and delete, 'update' is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool without needing to open the schema.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use update instead of create, archive, unarchive, or delete, nor about prerequisites such as the project already existing or required permissions. The sibling list implies the category, but the description leaves all selection logic to inference.

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