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 fails to state whether this is a PATCH-like partial update or full replacement, whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, what happens on conflict, or what the response contains. The bare statement conveys only that this tool mutates a project.

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 short sentence, which is technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. One tautological sentence does not earn points for efficiency since it conveys no meaningful content beyond the tool name.

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?

This is a mutation tool targeting a complex entity (many nested fields: tags, lessons, outcomes, metadata, technologies) with a nested data object, no output schema, no annotations, and a tautological description. The description is completely inadequate for guiding an agent through a multi-field partial update with nested-object semantics.

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 description coverage is 50%, and the description adds nothing beyond the schema. The description doesn't explain that 'data' is a partial-update payload, the relationship between id and data, or how nested objects like metadata and tags behave. With only half the parameters documented in the schema and zero description contribution, the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 "プロジェクトを更新" (Update project) is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name. It uses the verb 'update' plus resource 'project' with no additional scope, semantics, or distinction from the many sibling CRUD tools like update_career_entry, update_skill, update_goal etc. No differentiation is provided.

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?

No usage guidance is provided whatsoever. There is no statement about when to use this tool, when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., must the project exist first?), or whether partial updates are supported. The description offers zero guidance on alternatives or appropriate invocation contexts.

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