project_update

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

The description mentions destructive actions like 'delete' and 'return early', but lacks detailed side effects (e.g., impact on related resources, permission requirements). No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it is only partially transparent.

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 includes a summary line and a bullet-style args list. While clear, it is somewhat verbose; the args list could be more concise. No wasted words, but not as front-loaded as possible.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter semantics adequately but omits return value information and broader behavioral context (e.g., what happens after a non-delete update). Basic completeness, but gaps remain.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'project_id: The project to update (required).'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles, compensating well for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Update an existing project' and enumerates specific actions (set active, add repo, set default branch, delete), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from project_setup and project_list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, when to choose alternatives like project_setup, or what happens on error.

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