Update project

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: only passed fields change, the response matches get_project, completed projects drop out of list_projects, schedule edits can shift project dates, and the operation does not notify the customer and runs without approval. These are substantive side-effect and workflow details that annotations alone do not convey.

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 front-loaded with the action and editable fields, then adds return behavior, visibility, scheduling side effects, and approval behavior. Every sentence is relevant, though the paragraph is slightly dense and could separate operational caveats more cleanly.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema descriptions, the definition covers patch semantics, return shape, side effects on project visibility and dates, and approval behavior. It still leaves the exact mapping of address parameters and the non-idempotent nature implicit, but the core context is present.

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 only 17%, so the description must help, and it does by naming the categories of editable fields. However, it maps 'address' to street/city/state/zip only implicitly, calls 'status' a 'stage', and does not clarify the enum values or date formats beyond what the schema already provides. This is useful but incomplete compensation 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Change a project's') and enumerates the editable fields: name, stage, type, address, dates, description. It distinguishes itself from get_project and list_projects by explaining the return shape and visibility consequences, so an agent can tell it is the project-mutation tool rather than a read tool.

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?

It gives clear usage context: partial updates are supported, completed projects disappear from list_projects unless include_completed is true, and schedule edits can move dates again. It does not explicitly compare itself to nearby alternatives such as update_schedule_task, but the update-project scope is otherwise unambiguous.

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