Update project

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions renaming and replacing but does not explain side effects (e.g., overwriting fields, invalidating renders, required project state). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence with clear verb and resource, front-loaded, no redundant information.

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 tool with a complex nested payload parameter and no output schema, the description is too terse. It omits return values, error conditions, and prerequisite steps (like prior validation), though the schema's payload description provides some compensating guidance.

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 adds 'rename' and 'replace' semantics linking to the 'name' and 'payload' parameters. With 67% schema coverage, the schema already describes payload thoroughly; the tool description provides marginal added value but does not fully compensate for coverage gaps.

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 clearly states the tool renames a draft project and/or replaces its project JSON. It identifies the resource (draft project) and the actions (rename, replace), distinguishing it from create and delete tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_project, update_template, or repair_project_json. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., call validate_project_json first) or exclusions.

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