autotask_update_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains the partial update behavior ('Only the fields you provide will be updated'), which is crucial for a mutation tool. It also provides a practical example of status codes. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states the tool's function and key behavioral trait, the second provides a practical usage example. There is zero wasted language.

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 mutation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the core purpose and partial update behavior but lacks information about authentication, error responses, or what the tool returns. The high schema coverage helps compensate for some 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%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing the status parameter usage with the 'status=5' example. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('existing project in Autotask'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'autotask_create_project' by specifying it's for updating existing projects rather than creating new ones.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Update an existing project') and includes a common use case example ('set status=5 to mark a project Complete'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or provide alternatives for different scenarios.

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