Edit Tracker project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that queues is mandatory on every edit, that other fields change only when set (partial update semantics), and that the response includes the project with an incremented version.

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 with zero waste. The key constraint (queues required) is front-loaded before the return value, and every phrase earns its place.

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 a nested body, three required parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: required queues, partial update semantics, and the incremented version return. It could optionally mention permission requirements or that project_id comes from projects_list, but the schema already handles those details.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters and nested body fields in detail. The description reinforces that queues is required and other fields are conditionally applied, but this largely duplicates the schema's body description and adds no new syntax or format details.

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?

States a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('project'), making the operation clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as tracker_projects_get, tracker_projects_create, or tracker_projects_delete; the distinction relies on the tool name rather than the description text.

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 implies when to use the tool ('Edit a project') and includes a key constraint ('queues is required on every edit'), but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is left to inference from the verb and resource.

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