teamleader_projects_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that only provided fields are changed, which is a key behavioral trait distinguishing it from a full replace. However, it does not discuss other behaviors like error handling, permissions, or return value, but for a partial update this is significant.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the action, no redundant wording. Perfectly sized for the information it conveys.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and update semantics. However, there is no output schema and no annotation protection, so the description could have mentioned what the tool returns or any prerequisites. Still, given the schema covers parameter details, the description is largely sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond noting that only provided fields are updated, which is already implicit in the schema. The 'extra' parameter is described in the schema, and the description does not elaborate on it.

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 clearly states 'Update een nextgen-project' (update a nextgen project), specifying a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, close, etc., by focusing on updating existing project fields, and adds the partial-update nuance.

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 phrase 'Enkel meegegeven velden worden aangepast' (only provided fields are changed) provides clear context for when to use this tool: to update specific fields without overwriting others. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the partial-update semantics imply when it is appropriate.

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