Edit a project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds the key behavioral fact beyond annotations: patch semantics ('Only the fields you pass change'), which reassures the agent that unspecified fields survive. It does not mention permission requirements or validation failures.

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 with zero filler; the operation list is front-loaded and the patch-semantics clarification is placed second where it matters most for invocation. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the mutation set and partial-update behavior, but leaves open side effects an agent might want, such as whether changing client or rate affects existing time entries.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds partial-update semantics that the schema alone does not convey — all five properties are optional except 'project', and the description confirms that omitting a field leaves it untouched. It adds no detail on the 'Client / Project' identifier format, which the schema already handles.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair and enumerates the exact mutations supported: rename, move to another client, change rate, change billable flag. An agent can immediately distinguish this from create_project, archive_project, and update_client without opening any schema.

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 implied by the enumeration of editable fields — an agent knows this is for modifying an existing project — but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, no note on when to prefer archive_project instead, and no prerequisites stated. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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