focus_update_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Changes apply immediately,' which is a useful temporal side-effect note, but it fails to disclose mutation risks, reversibility, authentication requirements, or the partial-update semantics beyond the word 'partially.' This is a sparse disclosure for a write operation.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and method. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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 the tool has 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It does not mention required parameters, update constraints, response behavior, or the meaning of key fields. It is not complete enough for an agent to safely invoke without additional lookup.

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 coverage is only 21%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the resource name. It does not list which fields are updatable, explain the project_id requirement, or clarify defaults like workspace_id and organization_id. The description does nothing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action (partially update), the resource (a project), and the HTTP method (PATCH). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like focus_get_project, focus_create_project, and focus_update_task by specifying the partial update nature and project target.

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 description implies usage for modifying existing project fields but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other update tools or any exclusions. It lacks direct guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where other tools (e.g., focus_create_project) would be more appropriate.

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