update_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Update' indicating a write operation but omits critical details like permission requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or side effects. The conditional 'project' parameter is introduced but without explaining the context of multiple token configurations.

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 14-word sentence that is front-loaded, direct, and contains no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.

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 a conditional parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or authentication context. The tool complex enough to warrant more detail about when to use the project parameter and what happens after update.

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 baseline is 3. The description summarizes the two optional parameters ('headline and/or page content') but adds no additional meaning or format beyond what the schema provides. The conditional nature of 'project' parameter is captured in its description.

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 'Top.gg project listing', specifying the fields 'headline and/or page content'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project and check_user_vote, which are read-only or verification tools.

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 when needing to modify the project listing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to update vs create or get). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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