Update project settings

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the main file is the previewed/compiled file and that the pinned version is used by the web app.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the three supported update operations without any filler.

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 simple update tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency and a schema covering most parameters, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. It could still be improved by stating that omitted fields remain unchanged.

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 75%, and the schema itself documents project_id, main_file, and pinned_version. The description maps operations to parameters and adds context for main_file and pinned_version, but it does not clarify the name parameter or fully compensate for the remaining schema gaps.

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 names specific project-settings operations: renaming, setting the main file, and pinning the compiler version. It is clearly about updating an existing project, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as typst_create_project or typst_get_project.

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 listed operations imply when to use the tool, e.g. to rename a project or change its main file. However, there are no explicit when-not conditions or references to alternative tools for related project or file changes.

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