upservice_update_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds return type info ('Returns: str: JSON of the updated project record.') but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or error conditions. With annotations present, the added behavioral context is minimal.

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 compact (3 lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes an Args and Returns section, making it easy to scan. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., avoiding the code-style 'Args:' format in favor of plain text).

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?

The description covers the core update functionality and return format, but lacks details on the use of extra_fields for arbitrary field updates, potential validation constraints, or behavior when fields are omitted. Given the tool has a nested input schema and an output schema, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 description lists the parameters (project_id, title, extra_fields) with types and optionality, but the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for each property. Since schema_description_coverage is effectively high (schema includes descriptions), the description adds no new semantic value beyond restating schema information.

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 'Update an existing project's fields (e.g. title)', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like upservice_create_project, upservice_delete_project, and other update tools (e.g., upservice_update_sprint) by specifying 'project'.

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 indicates this is the general update tool for projects, but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus specialized siblings like upservice_set_project_managers or upservice_complete_project. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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