rm_update_project

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

Annotations already signal that this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond restating the mutation and listing editable categories; it does not disclose idempotency, partial-update semantics, validation, or archive consequences.

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 no filler. Every phrase contributes to identifying the tool's scope, and it is appropriately concise for what it attempts to convey.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions, this is too thin. It lacks update semantics, required-parameter context, null/default behavior, and guidance for using specific fields. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still leaves significant call-time ambiguity.

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 groups parameters into semantic buckets like metadata, state, dates, budget, and archive status, which maps to most fields, but it leaves project_id implicit and does not clarify distinctions such as budget vs budget_type or expected date formats.

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 states a concrete verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('project'), and an explicit scope: 'metadata, state, dates, budget or archive status.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_create_project, rm_get_project, and rm_update_project_phase.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create/delete or project-phase update tools. The update intent is clear, but no when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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