rh11_projects_update

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

The description adds behavioral context by stating the tool 'currently supports toggling the active status (pause/resume)', indicating its limited scope. It does not contradict the idempotentHint annotation; in fact, the description's pause/resume semantics align with idempotent set operations. The description also points to archive as a separate operation, providing useful behavioral guidance.

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 three short sentences, each informative and necessary. It front-loads the main purpose, then scopes the behavior, then provides an alternative. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple tool with two parameters, full schema coverage, and an idempotency annotation, the description is complete. It explains the operation, scope, and points to the archive alternative. No output schema exists, so no return value explanation is needed.

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 100%, with both ui_id and active documented. The description mentions 'active status (pause/resume)', which echoes the schema's parameter description but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Rhodium11 project and specifies the exact operation: toggling the active status (pause/resume). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool rh11_projects_archive by explicitly pointing to that tool for archiving, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 that this tool is for toggling active status and explicitly directs users to rh11_projects_archive for archiving. It does not explicitly mention other sibling tools like create or get, but the scope is well-defined and the main alternative is named.

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