Update project

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

The description discloses behavior well beyond the annotations: partial-update semantics ('only the given fields are touched'), an important side effect (public→private generates an access token), and an auth requirement (API key needed). This is exactly the kind of mutation-specific context annotations cannot carry, and it is consistent with idempotentHint=true.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, partial-update behavior, side effect, and auth. The core action is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description covers the fields, the partial-write semantics, the side effect, and auth. The only gap is that it does not clarify where the generated access token surfaces (return value vs. side channel) and gives no failure/conflict guidance for the unique-handle constraint.

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 each parameter (name, handle, isPrivate, projectId) is already documented in the schema. The description repeats the field list but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Change name, handle or visibility of a project') and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like delete_project or create_project, but the verb makes the distinction self-evident.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Only the given fields are touched' tells the agent this is a partial update and that omitted fields are left alone, which is genuinely useful guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisite ordering, and no exclusions, so it stays at the minimum viable level.

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