Update Project

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is a 'full project update' via PUT, implying the previous state is replaced. This provides behavioral context beyond annotations, but does not detail side effects or authorization needs.

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 two sentences, front-loads the HTTP method and full update nature, and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core action but omits return value information (no output schema) and error conditions. Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, a more complete description would mention what is returned on success.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description merely reiterates that name, github_url, and clickup_url should be sent together, adding no new semantic value 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 specifies 'Calls PUT /projects/{project}. This is a full project update' which clearly identifies the HTTP verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like aiproject_create_project (create vs update) and aiproject_get_project (read), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description instructs to 'send name, github_url, and clickup_url together,' which is a clear usage guideline for performing a full update. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for partial updates) or suggest alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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