update-project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the tool as updating a project but does not mention side effects, required permissions, partial update behavior, or whether changes are immediately persisted. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 sentence of 18 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every phrase serves a purpose, listing example modifications concisely. There is no unnecessary repetition or filler.

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?

With 14 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits important context such as the required 'project_id', the effect of omitting parameters (partial update), and what the tool returns (if anything). The tool is complex, but the description does not address that complexity.

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?

The schema covers all 14 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into categories (timeline, budget, etc.), but does not explain individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'existing project'. It lists example modifications (timeline, budget, status, configuration), which distinguishes it from create and delete tools. However, it does not explicitly state that it cannot create projects, though the required 'project_id' parameter implies that.

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 update-project-task or other update tools. It does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is more appropriate than others.

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