pylon_update_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only mentions a rate limit. It does not explain partial update semantics (whether unspecified fields are preserved), idempotency, permission requirements, or what response to expect. This is a significant gap 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 two concise sentences, with the core purpose first and the rate limit as a useful addition. No wasted words, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It fails to mention return values, error handling, permission needs, or update semantics, leaving the agent without critical context for correct invocation and expectation of results.

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 100%, so all 8 parameters are already documented with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 'Update an existing project in Pylon' clearly identifies the verb (update), resource (project), and system (Pylon). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like pylon_create_project and pylon_delete_project by specifying 'existing project'.

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 'existing project' implies this tool is for modifications rather than creation, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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