timeiq_project_update

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

No annotations provided. Description only states 'Update' which implies mutation, and mentions 'partial changeset' but lacks details on behavior such as validation, idempotency, error handling, or required permissions. With zero annotations, the description should provide more context.

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?

One sentence, concise and front-loaded. Could be improved by adding a second sentence for usage or param details, but current length is appropriate for a simple update tool.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools with similar names, the description is insufficient. Does not explain return value, behavior for invalid slug or changeset, or what dry_run does. An agent is left guessing about error states and dry-run functionality.

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 has 3 params with 0% description coverage. Description mentions 'slug' (identification) and 'partial changeset' for the changeset parameter, which adds some meaning, but does not explain the 'dry_run' parameter. Also, changeset is an object with additionalProperties: {} – description does not clarify allowed fields. Incomplete coverage.

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 clearly states verb 'Update', resource 'existing project', identification method 'by its slug', and scope 'partial changeset'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, list, and update_many.

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?

Implies usage for updating a single project partially, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like update_many. Sibling tool list includes project_update_many, which could be confused. Lacks when-to-use vs when-not-to-use.

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