update_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely important behavior — that enabled_module_names and tracker_ids are replaced wholesale rather than merged — which is real value beyond the schema. However, it omits permission requirements, reversibility, and whether unlisted fields are left unchanged.

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?

A single compact sentence with the critical replacement caveat front-loaded in parentheses. Efficient and quick to scan, though extremely terse.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations this description is thin: five parameters are undocumented and no permission or side-effect context is given. The replacement note helps but leaves the definition substantially incomplete.

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 0% for 7 parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics (full-replacement) for only 2 of them (enabled_module_names, tracker_ids) and says nothing about name, is_public, parent_id, project_id, or description. With low coverage it must compensate broadly but only does so for a fraction.

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 ('プロジェクトを更新する' / update a project), which is unambiguous against siblings like create_project, delete_project, and get_project. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The parenthetical is a behavioral caveat, not usage guidance, so the agent gets no explicit signal about when this is the right tool.

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