mcp-github-project-manager

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implying mutation but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the core purpose directly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, 2 with enums, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral traits, or output expectations, making it insufficient for an AI agent to reliably invoke this mutation tool.

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 must compensate by explaining parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema—doesn't clarify what 'projectId' refers to, what fields can be updated, or the semantics of enums like 'visibility' or 'status'. With 5 parameters (2 with enums) and no param info in the description, this is inadequate.

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 action ('Update') and target resource ('an existing GitHub project'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other update tools in the sibling list (like update_issue, update_milestone, update_project_field, etc.), missing sibling differentiation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_project' or other update operations, leaving usage context unclear.

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