Update A Single Project

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

While annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false (mutation allowed), the description claims a create behavior (HTTP 201) despite the tool name implying an update. This misalignment between name and described behavior reduces transparency. The description does not disclose other behavioral traits like authorization requirements or side effects beyond creating.

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 one paragraph of moderate length but contains redundancy (listing required parameters already in schema) and contradictory information (update vs create). It could be more concise and front-loaded with the actual behavior.

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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the expected outcome and behavior. It fails to clarify whether this is a create or update operation, does not describe the response object, and omits important details like validation rules or error conditions.

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 parameters. The description lists only the required parameters (company_id, project_id, name, status) but adds no new information beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Updates a single project' but then explains that it 'Creates a new Resource Planning records' and returns an HTTP 201, which is typical for a create operation. This contradiction between the tool's name and the described behavior severely hinders purpose clarity. Additionally, the phrasing is grammatically poor and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_project'.

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 includes 'Use this to perform the update a action' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify when not to use it. No comparison to other tools or exclusion criteria are given.

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