update_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Mettre à jour' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what 'indexation incrémentale' entails practically, how long it might take, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. The mention of RAG options is vague without explaining their impact.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose. There's no fluff or redundancy. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical behavioral context given the mutation nature and lack of annotations.

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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'indexation incrémentale' means operationally, what RAG options do, what the tool returns, or error conditions. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool confidently without trial and error.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'embedding_provider' interacts with 'embedding_model') or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 action ('Mettre à jour l'indexation d'un projet') and specifies it's incremental indexing with RAG options. It distinguishes from siblings like 'manage_projects' or 'search_code' by focusing on indexing rather than general management or search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar indexing tools if they existed.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when incremental indexing is appropriate, or how it differs from other project-related tools like 'manage_projects' or 'injection_rag'. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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