Update project

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

The description only says 'Edits project settings' with no disclosure of permissions, side effects, idempotency, or how changes are applied. Annotations provide readOnlyHint:false and destructiveHint:false but do not clarify what mutation entails. The description carries the full burden and fails to provide meaningful behavioral context.

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 short sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified to the point of being nearly a tautology, so the brevity does not result in an effective or informative structure.

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 tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations. 'Edits project settings' does not explain which settings are editable, how to specify them, or the expected outcome, making it severely incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 only 10% (only project_id has a description), and the description itself adds no parameter explanations. With 10 parameters and no compensation in the description, the agent has no semantic understanding of fields like topics, visibility, or wiki_enabled beyond their names.

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 identifies the action ('Edits') and the resource ('project settings'), distinguishing it from similar update tools for issues or merge requests. However, it does not list specific settings, so the scope remains somewhat vague.

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 like create_project or get_project. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the usage context entirely implicit.

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