update_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify what happens to fields not mentioned (partial vs full updates), whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response format looks like. It provides basic parameter mapping but minimal behavioral context.

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 reasonably concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. However, the parameter list format ('Args:') is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be more integrated. The structure is functional but not optimally 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?

For an update tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description should still address mutation behavior, partial updates, and usage context given the sibling tools available.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential semantic information for all 8 parameters, mapping each to specific project attributes. It clarifies that 'id' identifies which project to update, 'completed' marks as completed, 'canceled' marks as canceled, etc. This significantly compensates for the lack of schema 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 the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing project in Things'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'update_todo' or 'add_project' beyond the different resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_project' (for creating new projects) or 'update_todo' (for updating todos instead of projects). It also doesn't mention prerequisites or constraints for using this update operation.

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