graph.project.update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states 'updates data' without disclosing whether it performs partial updates, overwrites unspecified fields, requires permissions, affects related entities, or returns confirmation. This is insufficient for an agent to predict side effects.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence). While it states the core purpose, it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters and no other documentation. Every sentence earns its place, but the single sentence does not earn its place because it omits essential context, making it more incomplete than concise.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter documentation), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter behavior, update semantics, return values, or usage context. The tool requires far more detail to be usable by an agent.

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 add meaning to the 7 parameters. It does not mention any parameter names, roles, constraints, or relationships. The description adds zero value beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent to guess the purpose of 'id', 'slug', 'tags', 'status', etc.

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 an existing project in the catalog. The verb 'atualiza' (updates) and resource 'projeto existente no catálogo' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling 'graph.project.create' (create) and 'graph.project.list' (list). However, it does not specify whether the update is partial or full replacement, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'graph.project.create' exist for new projects, but the description does not mention such distinctions or any prerequisites, failure scenarios, or 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.