hex-update-semantic-project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether this is idempotent, whether statuses replace or merge with existing ones, what permissions are required, or what the outcome of the mutation is. The verb 'Add/remove' implies mutation but gives no operational detail beyond that.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in other dimensions.

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 an undocumented nested object parameter, this description is too thin. An agent knows roughly what the tool does but lacks the parameter shape, permission context, and mutation semantics needed to call it correctly.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage and a nested 'status' object whose schema description is merely 'Status updates', the description should compensate but does not. It never explains the shape of the status object, the accepted status values, or what semanticProjectId must reference, leaving the primary nested parameter effectively undocumented.

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 specific verb pair (add/remove) and a resource (statuses on datasets and views within a semantic project), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from project CRUD siblings like hex-update-project. However, it never differentiates itself from the closest relative, hex-ingest-semantic-project, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as hex-ingest-semantic-project or hex-update-project. The agent is left to infer the invocation context entirely 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.