webforge_update_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this represents a significant transparency gap.

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 maximally concise with a single, clear sentence that communicates the core function without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary elaboration or redundant phrasing.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address important contextual aspects like what happens on successful update, error conditions, permission requirements, or how this tool relates to the sibling tools in the server's ecosystem.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or constraints.

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 the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing website project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this update operation from other project-related tools like 'webforge_get_project' or 'webforge_create_project', which would require more specific scope information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'webforge_get_project' for reading and 'webforge_create_project' for creation, there's no indication of when this update operation is appropriate versus creating a new project or using other tools for related functions.

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