Update Project Tools

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed and returns the modified object, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations provide. The description adds moderate value over 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 reasonably concise but contains repetition ('Updates' appears twice) and an awkward phrase ('existing Project records'). It front-loads key information but could be tightened to reduce redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain return structure, but it only says 'returns the modified object on success'. The 'tools' array parameter lacks nested field details, making it incomplete for an agent to construct valid requests. Error handling or prerequisites are not mentioned, leaving gaps for a non-trivial update operation.

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 has 100% description coverage, but the 'tools' parameter description is vague ('JSON request body field — the tools for this Project operation'). The tool description adds context that tools control 'order and active status', which aids understanding. However, it does not detail the expected structure of each tool object, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 the order and active status of Project Tools, specifying the verb and resource. However, it also mentions 'update an existing Project records' which is slightly ambiguous and could confuse with updating the project itself. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_project_tools' but does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools.

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 implies a partial update by stating 'only the supplied fields are changed' and lists required parameters. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list or create tools), nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases.

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