quire.updateProject

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, so idempotency is covered. Description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what schema already provides (e.g., replacement vs addition for followers). Schema descriptions are complete, so no contradiction, but the description could mention partial update behavior.

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?

Single sentence, very concise. However, it could be improved by listing all updatable fields for completeness without significant added length.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks detail on update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement) and does not mention return value. Given that schema covers parameters well, the description still feels incomplete.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3, but the description only highlights name, description, and followers, omitting archived, addFollowers, and removeFollowers. This leads to incomplete parameter information in the description.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'update' and resource 'project', and lists several settings (name, description, followers). However, it omits 'archived', 'addFollowers', and 'removeFollowers' which are in the schema, slightly reducing completeness.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other update tools (e.g., updateDocument). No mention of prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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