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 explaining behavior. It lists which fields are updated, but does not disclose whether it performs a partial update (only provided fields changed), whether it requires special permissions, what happens on invalid input, or what the return value is. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that explicitly states the action and affected fields. Every word contributes to understanding; there is no waste or 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?

For a simple tool with five parameters (all optional except project_id) and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally viable. It tells the agent what fields can be updated, but does not clarify the partial-update semantics (e.g., only provided fields change) or what the response will look like. These gaps are not critical but could confuse an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond naming the fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and no extra semantic context is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update'), identifies the resource ('a project'), and enumerates the exact fields affected (title, description, slug, color). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project, archive_project, or reopen_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 provides clear context: use this tool to modify the listed project fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the verb 'update' alongside the specific fields implies when it should be used versus create/archive/reopen. No misleading guidance is present.

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