cor_update_project

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

Discloses 'partial update' behavior but lacks annotations to cover safety profile. No mention of auth, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate for basic usage.

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?

Extremely concise with clear parameter list. No wasted words, easily scannable.

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 tool complexity (partial update with arbitrary fields) and presence of output schema, description lacks details on response format, error handling, and full extent of updatable fields. Incomplete for nuanced 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?

Schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage). Description adds minimal meaning: 'project_id: The project ID' and 'data: Fields to update'. Compensates partially but remains generic, especially for 'data' as arbitrary object.

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?

Clearly states 'Update an existing project (partial update)', specifying verb and resource. Distinguishes from cor_create_project and cor_delete_project but not from other update tools like cor_update_client.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., cor_create_project or cor_delete_project). Implies only context from description.

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