update-project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses licensing requirements and input format constraints, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention mutation effects, permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool that modifies data.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical notes in a logical order. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second covers prerequisites, and the third specifies input format. No wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides licensing and format details but lacks information on mutation behavior, error cases, or return values. For a tool that updates data with three required parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only mentions the 'name' parameter indirectly and provides format guidance, but doesn't explain 'clientId' or 'projectId' semantics. This partial compensation is insufficient for three required parameters.

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 the verb ('Update') and resource ('a project's name'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-workflow' or 'update-tag', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides explicit prerequisites ('Requires n8n Enterprise license with project management features enabled'), which gives clear context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it compared to siblings like 'create-project' or 'delete-project'.

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