Update Project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important side effects: name changes trigger a tag rename with propagation conflict, and status changes to 'completed' or 'archived' trigger a conflict if tasks still have the project's tag. Deprecated parameters are also noted. However, it does not describe error states or behavior when no changes are made, but for a mutation tool, this is good transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main action and immediately dive into key behaviors. Every sentence is informative, and there is no redundant or extraneous text. This is an excellent example of efficient communication.

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 complexity of 8 parameters (many optional) and no output schema, the description covers core behaviors and side effects well. It explains the tag rename and status conflict scenarios, which are critical for safe usage. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but for a mutation tool, the main behaviors are sufficiently covered.

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 the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral interaction between parameters like 'cascade' (rename propagation) and 'resolution' (conflict handling) in context. It integrates these into the overall behavior description, going beyond the isolated schema explanations.

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 resource 'project', and specifies the fields that can be changed (name, description, or status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project, update_task, etc., which have different purposes. The description also mentions side effects like tag rename and conflict on status change, adding clarity.

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 does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for updating project details but lacks explicit 'use this when' or 'do not use if' statements. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and purpose.

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