lbm_update_project

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that 'Only provided fields are updated,' matching idempotent behavior, and details return value. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences plus a note, front-loaded with 'WHEN TO USE'. Every sentence is necessary, no waste. Structured clearly with notes and returns.

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 4 params (1 required), nested object, no output schema, the description covers what can be updated, what cannot, prerequisites, return value. Complete for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds behavioral meaning: partial update and constraints on brand_name/prompts, going beyond schema descriptions.

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 project name, models, or auto monitoring settings. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that brand_name and prompts cannot be modified and directs to lbm_add_prompts/lbm_delete_prompt for those.

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 explicitly states when to use (update project fields) and when not to (brand_name/prompts). It also lists a prerequisite: project_id from lbm_list_projects. Alternatives are provided.

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