Изменение проекта

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

Annotations already convey mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the project must exist and that at least one optional field is needed, but it does not elaborate on error cases or side effects.

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?

A single, low-redundancy sentence that states the action, fields, and constraint. No wasted words.

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 update tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavior and constraint. It does not mention return values, but no output schema exists and the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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 schema provides full parameter descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'at least one field' requirement, which is not explicit in the schema and clarifies usage.

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 updates an existing project's name, description, or avatar. This specific verb+resource+fields distinguishes it from other update_* tools that target different resources.

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 provides clear context: use for updating existing projects, with at least one field required. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the task is well-scoped among siblings.

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