projects_update

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states it updates. It fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether changes are partial or complete overwrites. For a mutating tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., brief notes on optional vs required).

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?

With 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the tool returns, prerequisites, or behavior with partial updates. The agent lacks sufficient context beyond the schema.

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?

The input schema already describes all 13 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond stating 'fields to update,' which is trivially inferred. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Update an existing project,' specifying a verb and resource. It distinguishes from other project tools (e.g., create, delete) by its action, though it does not mention scope or uniqueness compared to siblings.

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 says 'Provide the project ID and fields to update,' but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like projects_create or projects_delete. The context of use is implied but not clarified.

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