update_project

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

The description transparently discloses side effects and edge cases: archiving affects list_projects and editability, unarchiving is required before further edits, re-parenting changes the project hierarchy, and v1 does a full read-write instead of a partial update. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does so comprehensively.

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 well-structured with clear paragraphs and concise sentences. Every sentence provides necessary information—no fluff or redundancy. The format is easy to parse, with key points (archiving, re-parenting, v1/v2 behavior) highlighted.

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 the complexity of the tool (partial updates, archiving side effects, version differences), the description is complete. It covers all relevant operational aspects and edge cases. Although no output schema is provided, the description focuses on inputs and their consequences, which is sufficient for an 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?

Each parameter is semantically explained beyond the schema: 'Only the fields you pass change' clarifies partial update semantics; 'is_archived' archives and unarchives; 'parent_project_id' re-parents; 'hex_color' is six hex digits; 'description' is Markdown. The schema itself has no descriptions, so this added clarity is essential and fully compensates.

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's purpose: 'Update a project. Only the fields you pass change.' The verb 'Update' combined with the resource 'project' is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from other update tools for tasks, buckets, comments, and labels.

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 provides thorough usage guidance, explaining partial updates, archiving/unarchiving behavior, re-parenting, and version-specific differences (v1 vs v2). It also mentions the consequence of archiving (projects drop out of list_projects unless include_archived is true) and the associated 412 error, which helps the agent use the tool correctly.

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