redmine_update_project

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

Discloses partial update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed'), which is positive. However, without annotations, it fails to mention authorization needs, side effects, or whether the update is synchronous. Minimal for a mutation tool.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence (10 words) that front-loads purpose and key behavior. 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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. Lacks info on return value, error conditions, required permissions, or effect on related entities. Incomplete for a productive mutation tool.

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 0% description coverage, and the description provides no individual parameter details. For 5 parameters, the description adds no meaning beyond property names and types, failing to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Update an existing Redmine project', specifying verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like redmine_create_project, redmine_update_issue, etc. Additional phrase 'Only provided fields are changed' clarifies partial update semantics.

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?

Gives no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. While the purpose implies its use for updating projects, it doesn't contrast with other update tools or specify prerequisites (e.g., project existence, permissions). Adequate but not informative.

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