sprrint_projects_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation mutates project settings, but doesn't specify whether updates are partial or full-replacement, whether unspecified fields are left untouched or reset, whether validation occurs, or any permission requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 three-word sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the verb and resource. However, it errs toward under-specification, conveying almost nothing beyond what the tool name itself already implies, so it's minimal rather than genuinely concise.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. An agent cannot determine which fields are updatable, whether partial updates are supported, what the 'project' parameter expects, or what a successful call returns.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter meaning whatsoever — it doesn't even list which settings can be updated. The agent is left relying solely on property names like 'name' and 'visibility', with no clarification on what 'project' expects (ID vs slug), what values 'default_view' accepts, or how null defaults behave.

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 clear verb ('Update') and resource ('project settings'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sprrint_projects_create, archive, restore, and delete. However, 'settings' is somewhat generic and the description doesn't enumerate what settings are included, leaving the schema field names to do that work.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sprrint_projects_create (for new projects) or sprrint_projects_archive/delete (for lifecycle changes). The description neither names an alternative nor states any condition that would select this tool over others in the project CRUD family.

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