df_update_project

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

The annotations already disclose that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), is destructive, and is idempotent, so the description adds only the updateable field list. It does not describe effects beyond 'update'—e.g., whether unspecified fields are preserved or what destructive consequences a rename may have. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the write warning, which is easy to scan. However, 'WRITES TO DATAFORGE' is redundant with the annotations, and the field list omits project_id, so the extra sentence does not fully earn its place.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, this is minimally adequate: an agent can identify the purpose and the updatable fields. It is not complete enough to call correctly with confidence because the color format, partial-update semantics, and any destructive side effects are left unspecified. The required project_id is visible only in the schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to carry the semantic burden for four parameters, but it mostly restates the schema property names ('name', 'description', 'colour'). It never mentions project_id, nor does it explain value formats such as accepted color strings or whether fields are optional/partial updates.

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 the action ('Update'), the target ('project'), and the specific mutable attributes ('name, description or colour'). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling create/delete/access tools, though it does not explicitly reference them. 'WRITES TO DATAFORGE' is generic but does not obscure the purpose.

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 implies this tool is for changing an existing project's metadata, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives such as df_create_project or df_set_project_access, nor state that it is not for creating or deleting projects. An agent must infer the use case from the tool name and field list.

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