replace_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and requirements. It mentions PUT and all fields required, but doesn't address permissions, rejection behavior, or consequences for omitted fields. The statement 'all fields required' contradicts schema which marks only 3 fields as required.

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 sentence conveying the core operation, but lacks necessary detail. Could be expanded to explain behavior without becoming verbose.

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?

Without output schema or annotations, the description should cover return format, error conditions, and permission requirements. It only provides operation method and field requirement, leaving significant gaps.

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?

The description adds 'all fields required' which is misleading since schema shows description is optional. No other parameter explanations are provided, and schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description fails to compensate.

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 'Full replacement of a project' with 'PUT' method, indicating a complete overwrite. It distinguishes from siblings like update_project, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 phrase 'all fields required' implies this is for full replacement rather than partial updates, but no direct comparison to update_project or other alternatives is provided.

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