teamleader_update_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update an existing project' but does not disclose that it is a partial update (omitted fields remain unchanged), that certain fields have dependencies (e.g., billing_method requires billing_update_strategy), or what the response contains. It also does not mention any permission or side-effect concerns, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Update an existing project') and immediately notes the optionality of fields. It is concise and well-structured, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

The tool has 18 parameters with complex interdependencies (e.g., billing_method and billing_update_strategy, time_budget_unit with time_budget_value), and there is no output schema. The description fails to mention that this is a partial update, that only provided fields are changed, or any conditional requirements. It does not explain the response format. For a tool of this complexity, the description is inadequate for correct invocation without extensive schema analysis.

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 the schema already documents all 18 parameters including descriptions and enums. The description adds only the note that all fields except 'id' are optional, which is already implied by the schema's required array. It lists a few common fields but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project or delete_project by the 'existing' qualifier and the list of fields (start_date, end_date, title, description, budgets). This is specific enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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 gives a clear context: 'Use this to add or change the project's start_date/end_date, title, description, budgets, etc.' This implies it is for modifications, not creation or deletion. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., when assigning or adding owners) or point to alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions.

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