Bulk Update Current Project (Project)

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation with potential side effects. The description adds behavioral detail about partial updates and return behavior, but lacks information on error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise (approximately 75 words) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it redundantly repeats the tool name in the first sentence. Overall, it is appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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?

Crucial contextual information is missing: the description does not explain how to specify which Equipment records to update or what fields can be changed. The input schema only includes project_id and company_id, but a bulk update typically requires a request body with record identifiers and field data. Without this, the description is incomplete for effective tool use.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description merely restates that project_id and company_id are required, adding no new semantic meaning about valid values or how to obtain them. This is a baseline score for schema-covered parameters.

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 it updates Equipment records and returns the modified object. It specifies partial update behavior ('only the supplied fields are changed'). However, the tool name and title suggest updating a project, which conflicts with the description's focus on Equipment records, causing slight confusion in purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as company-level bulk update tools or other bulk update operations on the same server. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases.

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