Projects Update Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond the field list: it does not explain the null-default partial-update semantics, whether omitted fields are left untouched, or what permissions are required for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. It is efficient, though given nine parameters and a mutation it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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. However, for a 9-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage and no parameter documentation, one sentence is not enough: partial-update semantics, field value formats, and permissions are all missing.

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 carries the full burden. It gestures at the updatable fields in vague categories ("metadata", "state", "dates", "budget", "archive status") but does not map them to concrete parameters like budget_type or project_state, does not mention the required project_id, and does not explain that null means no change.

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 (update) and resource (project) plus the field categories being changed (metadata, state, dates, budget, archive status). An agent can distinguish it from projects_update_project_phase or projects_update_assignment by the resource. It stops short of an explicit sibling comparison, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 says what can be changed but never says when to reach for this tool versus projects_update_project_phase, projects_clone_project_schedule, or projects_delete_project. There are no prerequisites, no note about which fields are optional, and no exclusions, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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