更新项目

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers almost none: no mention of partial-versus-full replacement semantics, whether omitted fields are preserved, permission requirements, or reversibility. The only implicit signal is that 'basic info or current phase pointer' suggests a field-scoped patch rather than a full overwrite.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no redundancy, which is efficient but also under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There is no front-loaded detail about what an update actually changes.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin — it does not specify patch semantics, field meanings, phase bounds, or what the response contains. It covers only the broadest possible framing of the 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 description coverage is 0% across eight parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It explicitly names only the phase pointer (currentPhase) and gestures vaguely at 'basic info,' leaving name, color, budget, status, dueDate, and description undocumented — including the unknown allowed values for status and the 0-5 range semantics for currentPhase beyond the schema bounds.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (update a project) plus a coarse scope split (basic info versus current phase pointer), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, 'basic info' is left undefined against the eight actual fields, and nothing distinguishes this tool from siblings such as project.create, phase.status.set, or budget.save that touch overlapping project data.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to pick instead. An agent learning that it should move a project's stage has no hint whether project.update, phase.status.set, or program-level phase tools is correct.

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