openpanel_update_project

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Update' implying mutation but lacks details on partial vs full updates, return values, required permissions, or what happens if the project doesn't exist.

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?

Extremely brief (single sentence after removing bracketed prefix), but the '[UNIFIED]' tag wastes space without providing value. Appropriately sized for the information it contains, though that information is insufficient.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters. No output schema exists, yet the description doesn't explain return values. The distinction between 'site' and 'project_id' as dual required identifiers is unexplained.

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 the description fails to compensate. While 'project settings' loosely hints at name/domain/timezone, it provides no explanation for the required 'site' parameter (is it a URL, ID, or region?) or valid formats/constraints.

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 basic action (Update) and resource (project settings), but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained metadata cruft. Critically, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'openpanel_update_project_settings', which implies both tools do the same thing.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus 'openpanel_update_project_settings' or other project management tools. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing project_id) or side effects.

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