Update Project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the partial-update behavior, which is valuable. However, it omits a meaningful behavioral trait: the schema allows null for all editable fields, but the description never clarifies whether explicitly passing null clears a field versus omitting it. Permission requirements and reversibility are also unmentioned.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler. The verb, resource, and the key partial-update semantic are all front-loaded before the semicolon, and the clarifying clause earns its place. Nothing is wasted.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, and the description handles the core behavior plus the partial-update nuance. The one notable gap is null-handling semantics (clear vs. leave unchanged), which could cause an agent to set fields unintentionally. For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this is mostly but not fully complete.

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% with each parameter (name, emoji, description, project_lead, default_assignee) documented. The description's partial-update statement aligns with the optional/default-null parameters but adds no per-parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (project), and crucially discloses the partial-update semantic ('omitted fields are left unchanged'), which meaningfully distinguishes it from create_project and the read-only get_project/list_projects. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or differentiate from sibling update tools like update_work_item or update_comment, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state that it's for existing projects, doesn't name create_project as the choice for new projects, and doesn't mention prerequisites like requiring an existing project_id or project membership. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and sibling list.

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