df_project_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it modifies configuration; it does not reveal whether changes are reversible, whether they affect existing flows, whether authentication is required, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence with no filler words and the verb-object structure is front-loaded. It is efficient, although it is brief enough to under-specify operational context.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It does not mention the required 'name' parameter, the relationship to sibling tools, or the behavior/return value of the update operation.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all 10 parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, but given full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Modificar la configuracion') and a clear resource ('un proyecto existente'), which distinguishes it from related tools like df_project_setup by focusing on existing projects. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or specify which configuration aspects are modifiable.

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?

The use case is implied: modify configuration of an existing project, as opposed to creating one with df_project_setup. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or required input like the project 'name'.

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