update_project

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

The annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by warning that a rejected validation preview is not a tool error and by directing the agent to inspect `ready` and `validation_errors` in the result. It does not cover permissions or fuller mutation side effects, but it adds meaningful transparency beyond the 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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by two behaviorally important notes. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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 10-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies key missing context: omitted fields remain unchanged, preview validation failures are normal results, and `ready`/`validation_errors` should be inspected. The schema already documents `confirm` and all field-level details, so the description is largely complete, though it could say more about permissions or side effects.

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 100%, so the schema already defines all 10 parameters, including `confirm` and the updateable fields. The description adds a useful general semantic constraint that omitted fields stay unchanged, which clarifies partial-update behavior beyond the schema defaults. It does not add per-parameter detail beyond that.

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 and resource: "Update a project." This distinguishes it from create_project, delete_project, and copy_project, though it does not explicitly contrast with update_work_package or other update siblings. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is limited.

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 does not explain when to use update_project versus alternatives such as update_work_package or bulk_update_work_packages. It offers only the implied partial-update semantics of "Omitted fields stay unchanged" and no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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