update_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the mutation nature implicitly but says nothing about authentication requirements, whether null values clear a field versus leave it unchanged, partial-update semantics, or what is returned after the update.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words: verb, resource, and field list are all present up front. The only deduction is the misleading 'description' field name, which is an accuracy issue rather than a structure problem.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits return-value expectations, null-clearing semantics, and auth context, and it introduces a phantom field, leaving gaps an agent must resolve by inference across the sibling set.

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?

With roughly 40% schema description coverage (only title and card_type are named; owner, repo, and project_id are not), the description needed to compensate more than it does. It also introduces a 'description' parameter that is absent from the schema and fails to clarify that both title and card_type default to null, leaving an agent unsure whether null means 'skip' or 'clear'.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'Update a project's title, description and/or card type' — which clearly distinguishes it from lifecycle siblings like create_project, close_project, reopen_project, and delete_project. However, it names a 'description' field that does not exist in the input schema, which slightly muddies what an agent can actually pass.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool name plus the project resource in the description suggest using this for modifying project metadata rather than for lifecycle operations or for editing columns/milestones/issues. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing toward alternatives.

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