uselink_update_project

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

The description adds a key behavioral detail ('Only provided fields change') beyond the schema, indicating partial update semantics. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like permissions, idempotency, or return values, leaving the description to only partially carry the transparency burden.

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 short sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple update tool with only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior including partial update. It lacks guidance on tool selection and does not describe return values, but given the low complexity, it is fairly complete with only minor gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'name' and 'slug' as updatable fields but provides no additional meaning for the 'id' parameter or constraints on slug format/uniqueness, leaving parameter semantics under-documented.

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 the action ('Update') and resource ('a project'), and specifies the scope ('name and/or slug'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like uselink_update_document and uselink_rename_project_slug.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uselink_rename_project_slug or uselink_update_document. It only states what the tool does, leaving usage context implicit.

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