Update a project without bids

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

The description discloses a behavioral detail (the API refuses plain edits when bids exist) but does not mention other side effects like partial vs. full update, authentication requirements, or error responses. Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) provide some context but are limited.

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 concise sentences, covering the main action and the alternative condition without fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Despite clear usage guidance, the tool lacks parameter descriptions and any indication of the return value or success criteria. Given the nested budget object and unclear 'safe_type' parameter, essential context is missing for correct invocation.

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 has zero descriptions, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters. While names like 'name' and 'description' are self-explanatory, 'budget' and especially 'safe_type' are ambiguous without any explanation.

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 edits a project that has not received bids yet, using the specific verb 'Edits' and resource 'project'. It also distinguishes from project_action by explicitly naming the alternative and the condition when to use it (when bids exist).

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?

It explicitly says 'Once bids exist, use project_action with action `amend` instead', providing direct guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative. The condition is clear and unambiguous.

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