update-project

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

No annotations are given, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether updates are partial or full, whether it is idempotent, what side effects occur (e.g., date changes), or what authorization is needed. For a write operation, this is insufficient.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is overly minimal and could be slightly expanded to include key constraints without becoming verbose.

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 the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain that providing any parameter updates only that field (partial update) and what happens if no update params are given (likely an error). The current description is too vague for effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra context beyond what the schema provides. Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'an existing project in Things', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add-project' (create) and 'update-todo' (different resource). However, it does not elaborate on which fields can be updated.

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 vs alternatives like 'update-todo' or 'add-project'. The description fails to specify prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) or when not to use it.

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