Base Wework Edit Project

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral context on its own. It states that the tool edits project information, implying a mutation, but does not disclose authentication needs, side effects, reversibility, or whether partial updates are supported.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and the main editable fields, making it appropriately sized for a simple edit tool.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not address required fields, authentication parameters, usage boundaries, or behavioral details; the output schema reduces the need to explain return values but does not cover invocation context.

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%, so the description carries a heavy burden for explaining parameters. It adds high-level meaning by mapping 'name, description, timeline, department' to likely parameters, but it omits id requirements, username, access_token, and any format or null-behavior context.

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 uses a clear verb ('Chỉnh sửa' = edit) and resource ('dự án' = project), and it enumerates the affected fields: name, description, timeline, and department. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like base_wework_edit_task and base_wework_edit_department at a glance, though no explicit contrast is provided.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as base_wework_create_project or base_wework_get_project_detail. The intended use is only implied by the verb and resource, with no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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