autotask_update_project

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

Discloses partial update behavior ('Only the fields you provide will be updated') and notes a required field dependency (assignedResourceRoleID). With no annotations, it carries the behavioral burden adequately but lacks info on error handling or idempotency.

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 sentences plus a note, all front-loaded. No fluff, every word earns its place. Efficiently communicates core behavior and a key use case.

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 12 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers partial update and a key dependency but omits return value behavior or success/failure indication. Adequate but not fully comprehensive for a complex update operation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by reiterating partial update and highlighting the common use case for status=5. Also reinforces the assignedResourceID/assignedResourceRoleID dependency, adding context beyond individual descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Update an existing project in Autotask' with verb+resource. Adds partial update behavior and a common use case (setting status=5 to complete). Distinguishes from sibling create tools unambiguously.

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?

Provides a common use case (mark project complete) but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., other update tools). Does not state when not to use or prerequisites beyond schema.

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