update_geomi_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. It states 'Update a Project' implying mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The marketing sentence adds no operational value.

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 brief but not optimally structured. The first sentence states the purpose, but the second marketing sentence ('Geomi is the essential toolkit...') adds no value for tool selection or invocation, wasting space. It could be more front-loaded with actionable details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'project' is the resource being updated, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 ('Update a Project') and resource ('for your Geomi Organization'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_geomi_organization' or 'update_geomi_application_name' beyond the resource type, and includes marketing fluff ('essential toolkit for Aptos developers') that doesn't clarify the tool's function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_geomi_project' or other update tools, leaving usage context unclear.

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