Update a project

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds the specific archive/restore behavior, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose the behavior of other fields, fallback logic, or response expectations. It neither contradicts annotations nor enriches them substantially.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary behaviors. It contains no filler or repetition, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool with 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to mention how to identify the target project (project_id vs project_name), the workspace fallback behavior, or that all fields are optional. This leaves many scenarios under-specified for an AI agent.

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 only 50%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It implicitly maps 'renames' to name, 're-colours' to color, and 'archives/restores' to archived, but it adds nothing about billable, client_id, is_public, note, or the crucial distinction between project_id and project_name. Minimal value 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 uses specific verbs (renames, re-colours, archives, restores) tied to the project resource, clearly indicating an update operation. It distinguishes from siblings like create_project and delete_project, though it under-specifies the full scope by omitting other updatable fields such as billable or client_id.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conflicts. It lacks any language about required identifiers (project_id or project_name) or workspace context, leaving the agent without clear direction on invocation conditions.

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