gorelo_update_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the partial-update contract, but does not say whether omitted fields are preserved, what happens on an unknown projectId, or what the response contains — notable gaps for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the one operational rule that matters. Zero filler.

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 nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description plus schema cover the inputs well, but it leaves the return shape, error behavior, and the effect of omitted fields unstated. Adequate but with clear remaining gaps for a write 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the nested body properties carry rich per-field descriptions (StatusId enum values, ClearTargetDate, LeadAssigneeId=0 removal, array-replacement semantics). The description only restates optionality, so baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('a project'), which cleanly separates it from gorelo_create_project, gorelo_get_project, and the *_project_task/*_project_section siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

'Send only the fields you want to change' communicates PATCH-style semantics, which is the main usage rule an agent needs. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to siblings, and no prerequisites (permissions, whether the project must be open) are mentioned.

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