update_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'Update a project,' which implies mutation but omits details such as required permissions, idempotency, side effects, or error handling. The description fails to disclose important behavioral traits beyond the basic write operation.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence directly states the action, and the second adds a useful note about fields_json. While very concise, the first sentence nearly repeats the tool name, slightly reducing its added value. Overall, it is efficient but could be restructured to pack more information.

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 5 parameters, many sibling tools, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not differentiate from other project update tools (e.g., update_project_contact, update_project_team_member), nor does it discuss failure modes or permissions. Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the minimal description leaves the agent underinformed for correct usage.

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 explains that fields_json holds 'additional fields as a JSON object,' adding meaning to that parameter. However, it does not clarify the semantics of the other four parameters (project_id, name, description, status) beyond their names, leaving the agent without crucial context for correct invocation.

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 'Update a project.' which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_project_contact' or 'update_project_deadline' by its resource focus, and adds a unique note about fields_json for additional fields, making the purpose specific and 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or situations when a different tool (e.g., update_project_contact) would be more appropriate. The usage context is entirely implied from the tool name.

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