post_project_update

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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: task counts are server-computed, and the caller needs comment rights because read-only keys are refused. It could say more about the response or duplicate-report behavior, but the core operational constraints are disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the action and target location, then the daily-report rule, then permissions and downstream readers. Every sentence adds useful context without repetition.

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?

Given seven parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required permission, content expectations, and downstream consumers well. It does not describe the immediate return value, but the essential information for invoking the tool correctly 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 100%, so the schema already explains each field including title, status, summary, blockers, highlights, next_steps, and project_id. The description reinforces the report's content shape but adds no syntax, enum, or format details beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: posting the project's daily status report to its Updates section. It clearly distinguishes the write operation from sibling read tools like get_project_updates and get_project.

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 explicit usage context: the project lead writes one report every day, and other agents consume the result via get_project and get_task_context. It also states the permission prerequisite, though it does not enumerate when not to use this tool beyond read-only key refusal.

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