Create or update a project

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation is potentially over-broad for an update that 'only changes fields you pass,' but the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotation: key immutability, partial-update semantics, and that description: "" clears the field. This disclosure materially helps an agent avoid unintended overwrites, though it doesn't mention permissions or reversibility.

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?

Four dense sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the create-vs-update split before the finer semantics. Every clause carries actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers both action modes, their required params, and key immutability. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what happens to unspecified fields on update in edge cases.

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 each parameter's role and required-for-create/update status. The description's parameter notes (key immutable, "" clears description) largely mirror the schema text, adding only the partial-update framing.

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+resource (create/update a project) and immediately splits the two modes via the action enum values. It also bounds scope up front with 'Projects cannot be deleted from here,' which lets an agent distinguish it from a hypothetical delete/archive sibling. No sibling name is cited, but the create/update framing is unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions for each mode: action=create needs key + name, action=update needs project and only the passed fields change. It also rules out one capability (no deletion here). What's missing is routing to alternatives (e.g., list_projects for reads, or where deletion actually happens).

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