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. It discloses that updates can be partial (only knowledge or diagram or both) and that slug is the identifier. However, it does not specify whether updates are additive or overwrite existing data, what happens on failure (e.g., invalid slug or diagram format), or any authentication/authorization requirements. For a mutation tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences long, directly states the purpose and required conditions, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 has three parameters (one a nested object) and no output schema, the description covers the core action and constraints (slug requirement, at least one update field). However, it omits important context such as the return value/response format, error handling (e.g., if slug does not exist or diagram is invalid), and whether updates are incremental or replacement. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 input schema has three parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description adds meaning: it explains that slug identifies the project, project_knowledge is graph data, and project_diagram is in Mermaid.js format. It also clarifies that at least one of the two optional parameters must be provided. However, it does not specify the internal structure of the project_knowledge object or the expected formatting of the diagram string, which would improve clarity.

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 tool updates a project's knowledge graph data and/or its structure diagram in Mermaid.js format. This specific verb and resource, along with the explicit mention of two updatable components, distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project (read-only) and list_projects (listing).

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 clear context: the project is identified by a unique slug, and at least one of the two optional fields must be provided for the update to occur. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives (e.g., when to use update_project vs update_task), nor does it state when not to use it.

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