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 (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that it performs a partial update (only supplied fields changed) and returns the modified object. No mention of side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits 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?

Description contains some redundancy (e.g., 'Update current project (Project)' and 'Use this to update...'). Four sentences plus endpoint info is acceptable but not particularly concise.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain return values. It mentions 'returns the modified object' but omits what fields are included. Also missing prerequisites like required permissions, which is a gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Input schema documents all three required parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description only repeats the list of required parameters, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 this tool updates Equipment records' current project association, with specific parameters. However, the tool name 'update_current_project_project' is somewhat confusing, and the description could more directly state the core action.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'bulk_update_current_project_project' or 'associate_equipment_with_project_project'. The description simply says 'Use this to update', lacking comparison or exclusion criteria.

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