update_project

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

The description correctly indicates a destructive operation (destructiveHint=true) and confirms the tool is idempotent. It adds behavioral details not in annotations: only passed fields are modified, and slug/tier are immutable. However, it does not mention any specific side effects or error conditions, and the return value is not described. With annotations already covering safety (destructive, idempotent), the description adds useful but not exhaustive context.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the primary function and lists fields. The second clarifies partial updates and references sibling tools. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (5 parameters, all simple strings, with no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools with similar names, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it cannot do. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention the return value or potential error scenarios, but the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) mitigate the need for deeper behavioral description.

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 each parameter already has a description in the schema. The description reinforces which fields are updatable but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, constraints, or formatting rules). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Update project metadata' which clearly identifies the verb (update) and the resource (project metadata). It explicitly lists the fields that can be updated (name, tagline, description, category), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_visibility. The scope is precise and 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool and when not to: 'For visibility changes use set_visibility; slug and tier are immutable.' It also clarifies that 'only the fields you pass are touched,' which helps the agent understand partial update behavior. This clearly differentiates from sibling alternatives.

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