QuantConnect

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

The description doesn't contradict the idempotentHint annotation, which indicates safe retry behavior. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - it mentions what fields can be updated but doesn't discuss permissions, side effects, or response format. With annotations covering idempotency, this earns a baseline score.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no space on redundant details.

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 idempotentHint annotation and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and multiple sibling update tools, the description should provide more context about when to use it and what parameters are required. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden for parameter documentation. It mentions 'name or description' as updatable fields, which aligns with the schema's 'name' and 'description' parameters, but doesn't explain the required 'projectId' parameter or the structure of the 'model' wrapper object. This provides partial but incomplete parameter guidance.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('a project's name or description'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_project_nodes' or 'update_project_collaborator', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_project' or 'delete_project', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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