update_project

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses persistence across calls, rejection of empty string for start_date, and explicitly warns that currency and working_hours writes are non-persistent, providing live probing details.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Note sections, each sentence adding value. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no fluff, making it concise yet comprehensive.

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 the single parameter and existence of an output schema (returning get_project_info shape), the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter mapping, constraints, unsupported fields, and return shape. It is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining start_date as an ISO date mapping to document.project.actual.startDate, and notes that empty string is rejected, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 'Update project-level fields on the front document,' with a specific verb and resource. It further elaborates on the start_date parameter, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_task by focusing on project-level updates.

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 description implies usage for updating start_date and provides a note that currency and working_hours are not supported, offering negative guidance. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_dependency or get_project_info.

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