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 the editor access requirement and the 'at least one' precondition. However, it does not describe the return value, side effects, or behavior on missing/invalid parameters beyond the schema, leaving some behavioral expectations unstated.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by essential constraints. Every phrase adds value: the operation, the alias, the access requirement, and the parameter precondition. No redundant or filler content.

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 a simple 3-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers the essential usage. It includes permission and parameter preconditions. It lacks any mention of return values or error behavior, but this is acceptable for a straightforward update operation given the schema's thorough parameter documentation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context by framing title as 'rename' and description as 'update', and by highlighting the 'at least one' constraint that is not apparent from the schema's optional fields. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 tool's purpose: 'Rename a Harmonica project (workspace) or update its description.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_project, delete_project, and get_project by focusing on updating an existing project's title/description.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: renaming or updating a project's description. Also mentions a prerequisite ('Requires editor access') and a usage condition ('Pass at least one of title / description'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, but the resource specificity makes the usage context clear.

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