anon_patch_project

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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the required permission scope, that PATCH is partial (all fields optional), and that passing null to startDate/endDate clears them. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond 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?

Four terse clauses, permission and the partial-update rule front-loaded, zero filler. It could drop the raw endpoint line, but nothing is bloated.

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 nested-body mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: permission scope, implicit project targeting, and the null-to-clear date semantics. Minor gaps remain around unmentioned fields, but the core call path is complete.

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 effectively 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it compensates only partially: it documents null-clearing for startDate/endDate and that all fields are optional, but says nothing about name, status values, location, timezone, description, or currentStage.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (更新项目信息 / update project info) and is unambiguous against the many get_/post_ siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from anon_get_project or other patch tools, but the update-vs-read distinction is self-evident from the verb.

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?

Gives useful prerequisites (requires project:manage permission, project determined by API key so no projectId needed) but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives or what conditions favor it. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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