Modifier un(e) projet

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the partial update behavior (only provided fields modified), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on error handling, validation, or whether the response includes the full updated object. The return description is vague ('Données mises à jour'), so transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a returns line. It front-loads the primary action ('Met à jour un(e) projet'), then immediately clarifies the partial update behavior. There is no superfluous text, and every sentence adds value. Perfectly structured for quick parsing.

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 is a mutation (update) with no output schema, the description covers the basic behavior and return type but omits important context such as authentication requirements, potential side effects, edge cases (e.g., invalid state values), or concurrency. The schema covers parameters well, but the description does not fully equip an agent to handle failures or confirm expectations.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, only the general note about partial updates. According to the scoring guidelines, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 it updates an existing project in BoondManager, using a specific verb and resource. It also adds the key nuance 'Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés' (only provided fields are modified), which distinguishes partial updates from full replacements. Among sibling tools like create, delete, get, and search, the purpose is 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 implies usage when updating a project, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete. No guidance is given on when not to use it, prerequisites, or context for batch operations. The instructions are adequate but not proactive in steering the agent.

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