update_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates an existing project, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid project_id), or response format. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update an existing project') and specifies modifiable fields. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error cases) and usage context. For a mutation tool with four parameters, more completeness would be beneficial, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by specifying that updates can target 'name and/or agent instructions template', but this doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema descriptions state (e.g., 'project_id' as UUID, 'agent_instructions_template' clearable with empty string). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('existing project'), specifying what fields can be modified ('name and/or agent instructions template'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_project' (creation vs. update) and 'delete_project' (update vs. deletion), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_action_plan' or 'update_task_status'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot update non-existent projects), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_project' for viewing or 'create_project' for initial setup. Usage is implied but not clearly defined.

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