upservice_complete_project

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

The description says it marks as completed and returns a JSON of the updated record. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) by specifying the state change and return format.

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 concise: a single sentence for purpose, then clear args/returns format. Every part is essential and front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear output), the description covers the core functionality. However, it omits error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., project must exist). Annotations and output schema provide additional context.

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 coverage is 0% per context, but the schema actually includes a description for project_id. The tool description only restates the parameter name and type, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Mark a project as completed', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create, update, delete, and get projects.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, e.g., when to complete vs update a project. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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