yougile_update_project_role

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is already disclosed. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations and the schema provide—it doesn't explain partial vs full replacement, idempotency, or permissions.

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 is efficient and clear. It earns its place but is minimal, leaving some behavioral details to the schema.

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 update tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the resource and fields but doesn't explain what the update returns or any side effects. Given the annotations and schema richness, this is sufficient but has 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'New role name', 'Replace user list'). The description restates 'name, users' but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description uses specific verb+resource: 'Update a project role' and lists the fields (name, users). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project_role, delete_project_role, get_project_role, and list_project_roles.

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?

Usage context is implied by the update verb and the existence of sibling create/delete tools, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., role must exist).

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