update_project_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: server validates invariants, applies via deterministic builder, computes state_hash, and persists. It also warns against including credentials. The architecture is explained, though rate limits or specific side effects are not mentioned.

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 concise yet informative, with the main purpose stated upfront. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while packing useful context. A few sentences efficiently convey the tool's role, usage, and important notes.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and parameters. However, it does not describe return values or error handling, which would be helpful for a tool that performs complex server-side validation and persistence.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema. For 'ops', it details the 29-op grammar, explains evidence_memory_ids usage, and warns about credentials. For 'consolidated_until_event', it clarifies its role as a watermark. The description enhances understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: proposing structured operations to update a project's consolidated state (Project Brain). It uses specific verb+resource and explains the architecture, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project_state and list_memories_filtered.

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 explicitly advises using this tool after reading get_project_state and list_memories_filtered to identify changes. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, this context effectively guides the agent on appropriate usage within the workflow.

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