update_project

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

The annotations already signal a write operation and idempotency, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds a useful environment/authentication requirement (WRITE_ENABLED=true), which is valuable context beyond the annotations.

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 with no filler; the resource and prerequisite are front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning.

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 two-parameter update tool, the description, schema, and annotations are nearly sufficient. It lacks return or merge semantics, and since there is no output schema the agent must infer the response shape, but this is a minor gap for calling the tool correctly.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the documentation burden for sys_id and fields.

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 action ('Update') on a specific resource ('SPM project (pm_project)'), and the parenthetical table name removes ambiguity. This clearly distinguishes it from generic tools like update_record and create_project.

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?

It provides an explicit precondition ('Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true') but no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as update_record or update_task. The resource type implies its scope, but alternatives are neither named nor excluded.

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