autotask_update_project

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions partial update behavior and hints at Autotask constraints via input schema notes (e.g., assignedResourceRoleID required when assignedResourceID provided). However, it does not disclose return value, error handling, or permission requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences. First defines purpose, second adds key usage guidance. No fluff.

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 schema has 12 parameters with full coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description effectively covers the basic behavior. It is complete enough for a straightforward update tool with well-documented parameters.

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 each parameter has a description. The description adds value by clarifying that only provided fields are updated and by giving a concrete use case (status=5). Parameter descriptions also include cross-parameter dependencies (e.g., assignedResourceRoleID required alongside assignedResourceID).

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?

Description clearly states 'Update an existing project in Autotask' with the specific verb 'update' and resource 'project'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like autotask_create_project, autotask_search_projects, etc., by its domain (update vs create/search) and resource (project vs ticket, company, etc.).

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?

Description explains partial update behavior ('Only the fields you provide will be updated') and gives a common use case ('set status=5 to mark a project Complete'). It does not explicitly exclude any alternatives, but provides sufficient context for when to use.

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