update_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as a PATCH (implying partial updates), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose return behavior (what is returned on success?), idempotency, whether partial fields are merged or replaced, or any permission/auth requirements for a mutation operation.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the mutable fields. No wasted words. Could be longer to add behavioral detail, so this is good conciseness rather than under-specification.

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 annotations and no output schema, it does a decent job naming the fields. But it's missing guidance on status transition rules, what the response looks like on success, and error conditions. The tool is relatively simple (4 params, no nested objects), which tempers the severity, but more behavioral context would help.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does list the three mutable fields (name, description, status). This adds value over the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of the status enum values (active/completed/archived) or any validation logic around transitions, which would be genuinely useful given the enum.

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 uses a clear verb+resource pattern: 'Patch a project's name, description, or status.' It clearly states what fields can be updated. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like update_lead or update_ticket beyond the resource name, though the resource itself ('project') provides that distinction naturally.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like project existence), whether the status enum state transitions are validated (e.g., can you move from archived to active?), or any constraints on partial vs full updates. A sibling get/list tool exists but no cross-referencing is given.

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