update_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It names the kinds of modifications but does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, partial-update semantics, or outcomes. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the main actions. No filler or repetition exists; every word contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

Given 5 parameters and no schema descriptions or annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits important context such as how 'move' works, whether updates are partial, and what happens to unspecified fields. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but the operational context remains incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'Rename' to name, 'redescribe' to description, 'move' to parent_id, and 'change permission mode' to content_permissions. This gives some semantic help, but it does not explain parameter formats, null behavior, or the enum values for content_permissions.

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 uses a specific verb ('update') and clearly enumerates the exact operations: 'Rename, redescribe, move, or change the permission mode of an existing project.' This distinguishes it from create/delete/get siblings by focusing on modifying an existing 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 phrase 'existing project' implies the tool is for modifying resources that already exist, providing subtle context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create_project, delete_project, or search_projects, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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