update_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the write-prerequisite, and despite the destructiveHint it never says what is destroyed or whether changes are reversible, leaving the important behavioral trait unexplained.

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?

Two very tight sentences with the mutation nature and the identifier requirement front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, low schema coverage, and 6 parameters, the description should explain what changes and what a write affects. It covers only the identifier prerequisite, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 33% and the required array is empty, yet the description usefully asserts that 'project' (or project_id) is required for every write, partially compensating for the gap. It adds no meaning for name, status, model, or description, so half the parameters remain 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update project details'), which an agent can distinguish from create_project and list_projects in the sibling list. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'Write:' label signals this is the mutation path and gives a prerequisite (project name or id), which implies when to reach for it. However, it never contrasts with update_component, create_project, or any alternative, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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