project_update

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

The description adds the constraint about root path, which is helpful, but does not elaborate on other behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects). The idempotentHint annotation already covers idempotency, so the description adds marginal value.

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 single sentence is maximally concise with no fluff, front-loading the key action and constraint.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, idempotent, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete, though it could mention what the update returns.

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 0%, and the description only mentions 'mutable project metadata' without explaining that 'name' is the updatable field or clarifying the role of 'projectId'.

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 'mutable project metadata', and explicitly excludes changing root path, distinguishing it from tools like project_relocate.

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 implies usage context by stating what is not changed (root path), but does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-to-use/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.