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. It does disclose PATCH/partial-merge semantics, which is genuine behavioral information beyond the schema, but it omits permissions, whether omitted fields are left untouched or cleared on dependent fields, and what the call returns.

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 compact sentence with the mutation and the partial-update instruction front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence is thin enough that it could afford one more clause.

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?

An eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more: required projectId, the status-field alias, and any side effects or response shape are left unaddressed.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only adds the general rule that only changed fields should be sent, without addressing the StatusId/ProjectStatusId alias ambiguity present in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update project fields') clearly enough that an agent knows this mutates an existing project. It does not differentiate from siblings like update_task or update_risk beyond the resource name, but the resource noun does most of the work.

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 clause 'send only the fields to change' implies partial-update usage, which is real guidance. However, it never says when to use this versus create_project or update_project_progress, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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