hex-update-project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation mutates project state and singles out endorsements as a status type, but says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, how removal is specified, or side effects on the project.

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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the add/remove operation. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than economy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter that is only half documented, the description leaves too much unspecified. An agent cannot reliably construct the status object or predict the outcome of the call.

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 50%: projectId has no description at all, and the 'status' parameter is a nested object whose internal fields (status name, add/remove action, endorsement) are undocumented. The phrase 'including endorsements' hints at content but does not explain how to construct the object or how add differs from remove.

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 gives a concrete verb pair ('Add or remove') and a resource ('a status ... from a project'), so the action is identifiable. However, 'status' is never defined for a tool named hex-update-project, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like hex-update-semantic-project or the hex-edit-project-sharing-* tools. Purpose is implied rather than pinned down.

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 alternatives, no prerequisites, and no explanation of when to add versus remove a status. An agent must infer everything from the one-line purpose statement.

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