asana_update_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself, such as whether fields are overwritten, how 'dates' are applied, whether archiving has special side effects, or what response to expect. With no extra detail, the description contributes little beyond annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update a project') and then lists the editable fields. There is no verbosity or redundant phrasing. While it could be more informative, the structure is efficient and to the point, earning credit for brevity without sacrificing clarity.

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 a mutation tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain return values, field-specific formats (e.g., date strings), the required project_gid, or any interaction with sibling tools. The annotation provides some safety context but the overall description is incomplete for an agent to competently invoke this tool in varied scenarios.

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%, meaning no parameter has a description. The tool description merely lists field names without explaining their formats, constraints, or required status. It fails to even mention the required 'project_gid' parameter. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate by clarifying parameter meaning, but it does not, leaving agents with only bare names.

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 states a specific verb 'Update' and a resource 'project', and enumerates the editable fields (name, notes, color, archived, public, default_view, dates). This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from creation/deletion tools like asana_create_project and asana_delete_project. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from more specialized update tools like asana_set_dates or asana_set_custom_fields, which may overlap in scope.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another sibling tool (e.g., asana_set_dates, asana_set_custom_fields) would be more appropriate. There is no contextual or conditional information to help an agent decide between this and other update tools.

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