todoist_update_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates a project but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The return statement is vague ('confirmation message'), lacking detail on success/error responses.

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 efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence followed by well-organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a decent job explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, error handling). The output schema exists, so return value details aren't needed, but overall completeness is only adequate for a mutation tool.

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 clearly explains all 4 parameters (project_id, name, color, is_favorite) and their optionality, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify valid color formats or favorite flag implications, leaving minor gaps.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('existing project in Todoist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'todoist_update_task' beyond the resource name, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'todoist_add_project' for creation or 'todoist_delete_project' for removal. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project ID) or contextual constraints, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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