update_project

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

The description adds the important behavioral nuance that only explicitly supplied fields are updated, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain the clear_* boolean behavior or the 'allowed project' constraint beyond a brief phrase. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes meaning.

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 12 parameters, no schema descriptions, and non-obvious clear_* flags, the description is far too thin to fully guide correct invocation. The output schema covers return values, but the description does not explain field interactions, required permissions, or the scope of 'allowed project.'

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only says 'explicitly supplied planning fields,' which gives a general partial-update hint but does not clarify any specific field semantics, such as the difference between null values and clear_date_start/clear_date_end flags.

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'), a specific resource ('project'), and specifies that it applies to 'planning fields' on 'an allowed project.' This is distinct from sibling tools like update_project_stage or update_task.

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 phrase 'planning fields' and 'allowed project' implies when this tool should be used, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tool to prefer. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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