Criar ou atualizar projeto

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 only states that the tool creates or updates a project, but does not explain side effects (e.g., id derivation, default statuses, whether updates are partial or full, deletion behavior, or output format). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. It is concise and contains no wasted text, though it could include more behavioral detail without violating conciseness.

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 create/update tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, edge cases (e.g., id requirement, archive behavior), or what the tool returns. The single hint about tickets ('Use antes de abrir tickets') is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in all scenarios.

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?

The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics. With schema coverage at 60%, the missing descriptions for 'status' and 'description' are not compensated by the description. It also does not clarify the relationship between parameters (e.g., that 'name' is required on creation, or how 'id' is derived). The description adds no value beyond the high-level purpose.

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 ('cria ou atualiza') and a specific resource ('projeto de engenharia') with examples (app, backend, QA lab). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that handle tickets (work_upsert_ticket) and tasks (work_upsert_task). The purpose 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?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'Use antes de abrir tickets' (use before opening tickets). This gives a practical scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or recommend alternatives for listing or viewing projects, though the purpose itself differentiates from siblings.

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