update_project_state

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it triggers note creation, which is a behavioral detail beyond annotations. However, no mention of permissions or side effects for specific actions.

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?

Two concise sentences. Information is front-loaded, but structure could be improved with bullet points or explicit sections. No wasted words.

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?

Description provides high-level behavior but omits return values (no output schema). With many sibling tools, more context on when use is preferred would improve completeness. Adequate but not rich.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. Description adds context about actions mapping to status updates but does not elaborate on action-specific effects or data field contents. Marginal added value beyond 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?

Description states it handles state changes for tasks, milestones, and paths, mapping actions to status updates and note creation. Purpose is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools like update_task or update_milestone.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_task, update_milestone, or specific action tools. It implies usage for orchestrated state transitions but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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