update_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Update a project by ID' and 'Returns: Updated Project object'. It does not mention side effects, permissions, whether omitted fields are left unchanged or reset, or any irreversible consequences. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 opens with a clear one-line purpose and then lists parameters in a structured Args block. Each parameter gets one line with no filler. Given the large parameter count, this is appropriately sized and organized, though it could include a brief usage note without bloating.

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?

The tool is complex (24 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations). The description covers all parameters and the return value, but lacks guidance on when to use this vs update_project_features, what happens with null vs omitted fields, and any prerequisites. It is adequate for parameter lookup but not fully complete for confident invocation.

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%, and there are 24 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It provides short explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'network: Project visibility (0=secret, 2=public)', 'archive_in: Days until auto-archive'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, some descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'name: Project name') and lack depth on formats, defaults, or relationships.

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 opening phrase 'Update a project by ID' clearly specifies the action (update) and the resource (project) with a required identifier. It distinguishes this from siblings like create_project, retrieve_project, and update_project_features by focusing on general project fields rather than features.

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 clearly implies this is for updating an existing project by ID, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as update_project_features for feature-specific updates, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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