Update Project Tools

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

Annotations already note this is a non-read, non-destructive, idempotent operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: partial update behavior, project_id defaulting, success return value, and common HTTP error statuses with their meanings. This goes well beyond structured fields, providing the agent with concrete expectations for both success and failure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately long but front-loaded, with the core purpose first and supporting details (defaults, errors, endpoint) following. Each sentence carries relevant information, though it could be tightened by removing the redundant 'Required parameters' line since the schema already marks them required. Overall it is structured and readable.

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?

The description covers purpose, partial update behavior, defaulting, return value, error statuses, and endpoint, which is substantial for a two-parameter PATCH tool. However, the 'tools' array parameter has an empty items schema, and the description does not explain the expected structure of a project tool object, leaving a gap for agents needing to construct valid tool entries. Still, given the absence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with both project_id and tools described. The description adds partial-update guidance and project_id defaulting, but the defaulting statement conflicts with the schema's required flag and the explicit 'Required parameters' list. This inconsistency reduces confidence in parameter semantics, though the description still contributes some extra meaning over 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 opens with 'Updates the order and active status of Project Tools,' a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_project_tools variants. It specifies the exact scope (order and active status) and the PATCH endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage context, including partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values') and the project_id default from config. It does not explicitly name alternative list tools, but the update-focused language makes the use case evident. It also states failure scenarios (401/403/404), which helps agents decide if they have the right tool.

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