update_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states that the operation is a PATCH and only provided fields are changed, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose any additional side effects, authorization requirements, or potential errors. For a simple update, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentence that effectively front-loads the key action 'Partially update' and specifies the affected fields. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

Considering the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate. It explains the operation and which fields are modified. However, it omits information about the return value (e.g., whether it returns the updated project), which would be helpful for completeness. The sibling tools provide additional context for differentiation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by clarifying that name and description are partially updatable, but it does not provide additional context beyond what the schema shows (e.g., formats, constraints). The description confirms the optional nature of the fields but does not fully compensate for the lack of 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?

The description clearly states it is a partial update (PATCH) of a project's name or description, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'replace_project' which implies full replacement.

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 when to use this tool (partial updates) and contrasts with full replacement via 'replace_project', though it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. The context from sibling tools provides sufficient guidance.

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