update_project

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

With no annotations, the description must shoulder the burden of behavioral transparency, but it only restates the basic action (update status, summary, next steps) without disclosing side effects, idempotency, or handling of omitted optional fields. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action first and a usage condition second, with no redundant words. It is concise and well-structured.

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's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the core action and a usage trigger, but it does not explain behavior when optional parameters are omitted, inter-tool dependencies, or error conditions. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for more context.

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's mention of 'status, summary, and next steps' helps map the generic parameter names (status, summary, next_actions) to domain concepts. However, it omits the 'project' parameter and does not clarify value formats or constraints, partially compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

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 tool updates the current project's status, summary, and next steps, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous and the usage hint adds clarity.

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 provides a clear contextual condition: 'suitable to call when there is stable progress during a task.' This gives a when-to-use hint, though it does not list exclusions or alternative tools. The guidance is direct but lacks explicit comparison to siblings.

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