keyso_post_wordstat_id_update_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the update is additive or destructive, or what the response contains. The example URL is useful but does not cover behavioral implications.

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?

The description is concise, includes the method and path, and provides an example URL which is helpful. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the HTML tags and duplicated path info slightly clutter it, and the Russian text is not optimized for English-only agents.

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 it is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque body parameter, the description is incomplete. The agent cannot determine what to send in the body, what the expected response format is, or whether there are any prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a POST update operation.

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 schema provides minimal descriptions for parameters: id is 'path (auto-detected)', body is 'JSON body' with an empty object schema, and token/base_url are overrides. The description adds nothing beyond this—no explanation of what fields the body should contain or any constraints on the id. Schema coverage is high but the descriptions are nearly useless, and the tool description does not compensate.

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 the tool updates project data for a created Wordstat project, which is a clear verb+resource. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like update_words, but the name and description imply project-level updates. It is specific enough to convey the core purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as keyso_post_wordstat_create_project, keyso_post_wordstat_id_update_words, or keyso_delete_wordstat_delete_project. The description merely says 'update data for the created project' without context on prerequisites or selection criteria.

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