put_project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds genuine behavioral context with the partial-update semantics, but never explains what is destroyed or cleared, nor why a PUT is non-idempotent — a notable gap given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, which is good, but the first two sentences are redundant ("Update a project. Update a project using its unique identifier") and one of them earns nothing. The partial-update note is the only high-value sentence in an otherwise padded block.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with nested body objects, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description should cover required identifiers and mutation side effects. It covers only the update-by-id concept and partial-update behavior, leaving the agent to infer the destructive scope from annotations alone.

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 reported at 0% for the top-level parameters, so the description must carry weight. It names two of the updatable body fields (name, description) and gestures at the rest with "other project settings," but says nothing about the required path.projectId, and never enumerates the boolean uses_* toggles or date fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a project") and identifies the key ("using its unique identifier"), which distinguishes it from get_project, post_project, and archive_project. However, it never names or contrasts with those siblings, and the first two sentences simply restate the same idea.

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?

"This endpoint supports partial updates, so you only need to include the fields you want to change" gives real usage context for how to call it. It offers no guidance on when to use put_project versus post_project, archive_project, or unarchive_project, so the when/when-not dimension is only implied.

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