Update project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description usefully adds the required write scope, but it never explains partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared) nor why the operation is flagged destructive, which is the key behavioral question for a 16-field updater.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded ahead of the precondition, with no wasted phrasing. It is perhaps briefer than ideal given 16 parameters, but nothing in it is extraneous.

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 16 optional fields and no output schema, the description should at minimum state update semantics, e.g., that only supplied fields change. The scope requirement is good, but the agent is left to guess how omissions are handled on a destructive-flagged update.

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 all 16 parameters are documented in the schema itself, including enums and numeric ranges. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns no credit beyond the baseline.

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?

Specific verb (update) plus resource (project) and a 'by ID' identifier, so the operation is immediately clear. However, with dozens of update_project_* siblings and update siblings in the list, the description does not differentiate itself from those alternatives or clarify that it targets the top-level project entity.

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 prerequisite 'Requires projects:write scope' gives a real usage condition, which is useful context. But there is no statement of when to pick this over bulk_update or the many update_project_* siblings, and no exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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