edit_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. It only states that the tool modifies name/description but does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, behavior on non-existent projects, or return/error semantics.

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 opens with a succinct one-sentence purpose, followed by a structured Args list. It is compact and has no unnecessary prose, though the Args block partially duplicates schema property names.

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 simple edit tool, the description covers the essential action and parameters. However, it omits any prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) or error conditions, and there is no annotation to fall back on. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the 'Args' section in the description explains each parameter: project_uuid as UUID, and the other two as new values with '(если нужно изменить)' clarifying they are optional. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Изменить' = change) and resource ('проекта' = project) with exact fields ('название и/или описание' = name and/or description), clearly distinguishing it from sibling edit tools for schema, table, column, etc.

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 usage context is implied by the purpose: use this tool when you need to change a project's name or description. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer.

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