md_project_update_specification

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool replaces and merges (mutating behavior), but omits important behaviors like the default dry_run=true, idempotency support, and the scope of what gets destroyed or overwritten.

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 that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is concise, though perhaps too terse given the complexity of the tool.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects and an output schema, this description leaves significant gaps: no mention of required arguments, workflow timing, side effects, dry-run behavior, or return information. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of usage context.

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 by explaining parameters. It loosely maps to science_contract, forcefield, and geology_model via 'science contract' and 'model/forcefield/geology requirements,' but it does not clarify the required project_directory and specification, nor the dry_run or idempotency_key parameters.

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 specific action—'Replace the science contract and merge confirmed model/forcefield/geology requirements'—with a clear verb and resource. It is understandable but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling project-management tools like md_project_validate or md_project_set_quality_gate.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as md_project_initialize, md_project_validate, or md_project_transition. The word 'confirmed' hints at a prerequisite, but there is no explicit workflow context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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