yougile_update_project

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that 'deleted' triggers a soft-delete and that '-' in the users map removes a user. It does not describe permissions or irreversibility, but the added details go beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It is both concise and scannable.

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 description covers the main fields and the soft-delete behavior, but it does not mention what the response looks like (no output schema), whether updates are partial or full replacement, or any prerequisites. For a 4-parameter update tool with a nested object, the description is adequate but leaves some operational gaps.

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%, with clear per-parameter descriptions (e.g., 'userId -> role map', 'true to soft-delete'). The description text largely repeats the schema's 'Use '-' as role value to remove a user' without adding new semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a project and enumerates the specific updatable aspects (title, users, soft-delete). It uses a strong verb ('update') with a clear resource ('project'), and the explicit mention of soft-delete distinguishes it from simple create/list/get sibling tools.

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 implies usage for modifying a project but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. It does provide a specific usage hint for removing users via '-' as a role value, but this is parameter-level guidance rather than tool-selection guidance. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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