updateProject

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose mutation side effects, partial update behavior, or error responses. 'Update project metadata' only signals a write operation and fails to clarify whether only provided fields are changed or what happens if the project ID is invalid.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. It is concise and free of fluff, though it is so brief that it omits potentially useful context, which keeps it from being a 5.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too sparse to be complete: it does not explain update semantics (partial vs full), required permissions, return values, or failure modes, leaving an agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add semantic detail beyond the schema, merely calling everything 'metadata' without explaining individual fields.

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 indicates an update operation targeting project metadata, distinguishing it from createProject, deleteProject, and updateNode. However, it does not enumerate the specific metadata fields, leaving the scope somewhat generic but still recognizable.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using createProject for new projects, updateNode for node-level changes, or any prerequisites or context that would help an agent choose this tool appropriately.

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