n8n_update_project

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only behavioral cue is the license requirement. Fails to mention mutation side effects, idempotency, error conditions (e.g., project not found), or reversibility of changes.

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?

Brief and front-loaded, but wastes leading tokens on bracketed tags '[UNIFIED] [Enterprise]' that provide no semantic value to the agent. Core content is efficiently conveyed in one sentence.

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?

Inadequate for a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations. The plural 'metadata' contradicts the schema which only accepts a single 'name' field. Missing parameter documentation and return value description creates significant gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage and description adds zero parameter context. With 3 required params (site, project_id, name) completely undocumented, the description fails to compensate. Does not clarify that 'name' is the metadata field being updated.

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 specific action 'Update' and resource 'project metadata', distinguishing from sibling create/delete/get operations. However, uses vague 'metadata' instead of specifying the updatable field (appears to be only 'name' per schema).

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?

Provides critical licensing constraint ('Requires n8n Enterprise/Pro license') that establishes when the tool is available. Missing explicit guidance on when to use this vs. n8n_create_project or prerequisites like project existence.

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