Update project

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). It does not mention side effects, error handling, permissions, or any operational nuances, so the annotations carry the full transparency burden.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word contributes: it states the verb, object, and the specific attributes. No superfluous content.

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?

For a simple CRUD update, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks context such as whether the project must exist, what happens on invalid input, or that uuid identifies the target. The annotations and schema cover some aspects, but the description leaves gaps for an agent relying on it alone.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'name or description' as updatable fields but does not explain the required 'uuid' parameter's role as the identifier. This leaves part of the parameter semantics unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('project') and explicitly lists the mutable fields ('name or description'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like createProject, deleteProject, or updateApplication.

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 for changing a project's name or description, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over createProject, deleteProject, or updateApplication. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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