update_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses partial-update semantics ('Only changes the fields that are provided', 'empty = leave alone') and the immutable identifier limitation. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or whether changes are reversible.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and partial-update behavior, followed by a concise list of parameters. Every sentence adds value; the note about Redmine's identifier limitation is relevant and not wasteful.

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 moderate complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, parameters, and an important limitation. It could additionally name alternatives or auth requirements, but it is not materially incomplete for a simple project update tool.

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?

Although the schema has no descriptions, the Args section explains each parameter and adds the crucial 'empty = leave alone' semantics for name, description, and homepage. The identifier is also contextualized as immutable. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Update a project', clearly stating the action and resource. It further specifies 'Only changes the fields that are provided', distinguishing this partial-update behavior from create/archive/list siblings.

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 implies when to use the tool (updating project fields) and explains that omitted fields are left unchanged, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria such as 'use update_project_member for membership changes.'

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