update_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that only provided fields are updated (partial update), which is useful, but it omits any mention of return behavior, side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with 20 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second adds critical detail about partial updates. Ideal length for clarity.

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 20 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns after update, what happens on invalid input, or any side effects. For a complex update tool, more context is needed.

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 groups parameters into categories (name, billing, budget, timeline), which adds some meaning, but it does not provide additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema descriptions already offer.

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 it updates an existing project and lists categories of settings (name, billing, budget, timeline). This distinguishes it effectively from sibling tools like create_project (creation) and delete_project (deletion), as well as get_project (retrieval).

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 for modifying an existing project but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., create_project for new projects) or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., project existence). No exclusions are mentioned.

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