wisdom_update_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update project settings' and does not describe side effects, whether the update is partial or full, whether existing values are overwritten, or how the optional uuid behavior works. The schema supplies some detail, but the description itself is behaviorally thin.

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 short and free of clutter, but it is also under-specified. It is a single generic phrase with no additional context, so while it is concise, it does not use its brevity to deliver meaningful supporting 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?

With five optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, an agent has limited information about what happens when calling this tool, what a successful update returns, or what constraints exist. The schema explains parameter meanings, but the description fails to clarify operational context such as whether at least one parameter is expected or how the tool behaves with no parameters supplied.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-level detail. The schema already documents each field, including the uuid fallback and visibility sync behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that information.

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 clear verb ('Update') and resource ('project settings'), which conveys the core operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like wisdom_set_project or wisdom_create_project, but the word 'settings' narrows the scope enough to be understandable.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wisdom_set_project, wisdom_create_project, or wisdom_clear_project. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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