Update project

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It never states whether this is a partial patch (omitted fields preserved) or a full replace, whether it requires ownership/permissions, whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains. The only behavioral-adjacent note — that summary should not be a changelog because 'those go stale' — is writing advice, not tool behavior.

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, front-loaded with the set of writable fields, with no filler. The second sentence is advisory rather than strictly necessary, which keeps it just short of maximally efficient.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the two things an agent most needs: that `project` is the required target selector, and whether unspecified fields are left untouched. It also says nothing about the return value or error behavior.

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 67%, and the description names four of the six parameters (name, root_path, repo_url, summary), adding a small amount of value by signalling which fields are writable. But it omits the required `project` identifier and `model` entirely, and the rich per-field guidance for summary and repo_url already lives in the schema, so net added meaning is modest.

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 verb 'Set' plus the enumerated fields (name, root_path, repo_url, summary) makes it clear this mutates an existing project's attributes, and the title confirms the resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from create_project or merge_projects, so an agent must infer that this targets an already-registered project.

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 second sentence gives a timing cue — use this right after registration to establish summary and repo_url — which is real usage context. However, there is no when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative (create_project) or what happens if the project does not yet exist.

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