rm_update_project_phase

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

The description only says 'update' and gains no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations already imply (write operation, non-destructive). It fails to disclose whether the update is partial (only provided fields are changed) or full, what happens if the phase does not exist, or any permission/rate-limit considerations. With openWorldHint and destructiveHint present, the description adds essentially no new behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is concise and directly states the core operation. However, given the tool's complexity (7 parameters), the extreme brevity crosses from concise into sparse, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 an update tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no mention of partial-update semantics or field purpose, this one-sentence description is inadequate. Although an output schema exists and may cover return values, the description omits critical usage context and field meaning, leaving the agent to make risky assumptions.

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% and the description lists none of the parameters. Optional fields like name, budget, start_date, and description are left entirely unexplained. The description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving an agent to guess parameter formats and update behavior.

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 is a clear, specific verb+resource phrase: 'Update an existing project phase.' The word 'update' and 'existing' distinguish it from sibling tools like rm_create_project_phase, rm_get_project_phase, and rm_delete_project_phase. An agent can immediately determine what this tool does without ambiguity.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that one should only update phases that exist, nor does it differentiate from rm_update_project or rm_create_project_phase. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool references are provided.

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