updateProjProject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying endpoint call, the mutation nature, dependencies on prior queries, and field consistency requirements. It lacks details on error handling or partial success, but for an update tool, the behavioral context added beyond the schema is substantial.

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 paragraph with dense, essential information. It is front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, then detailed rules. Every sentence contributes value, though a bullet-point structure could improve readability. No excess wording is present.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main usage flow: prerequisites, valid id sources, and field constraints. It does not specify the return value or error handling, but for an update tool, the usage context is well-addressed. The schema descriptions further support completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds higher-level rules: relationships between parameters (e.g., customerName, customerCode, customerId must be from the same record; pmName and userId together). It also reiterates that id must come from a prior query. This adds meaning beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 '修改项目信息' (modify project information), specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like updateProjTask, deleteProjProject, and saveProjProject by outlining specific prerequisites and constraints, ensuring the agent understands the exact purpose.

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 explicitly instructs to call queryProjProjectList first, mandates that the id must come from that query, and advises to only pass fields that need modification. It provides specific rules for modifying customer or project manager fields, including which other tools to query (queryProjCustomer, queryProjUser) and how to pass related parameters together. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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