Update Project

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond annotations: partial update semantics ('Only supplied fields change') and the requirement that the project be owned and active. Annotations already indicate a write operation, but the description adds meaningful context about how the update behaves.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and clearly communicates the core behavior. Every word contributes necessary information, with no redundant phrases.

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?

With five parameters, zero schema documentation, no output schema, and only brief annotations, the description offers minimal contextual grounding. It does not clarify parameter usage, validation behavior, or potential error conditions, leaving the agent to infer too much for a tool with this complexity.

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 the description does not compensate by explaining any of the five parameters (name, area_id, project_id, sort_order, description). It only generically says 'Only supplied fields change,' which adds no field-level meaning beyond what the schema property names alone convey.

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 (partially update) and target resource (a Project), and specifies that it applies to owned active Projects. This distinguishes it from sibling update tools for other resources and from project lifecycle tools like archive or delete.

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 the appropriate context: use this tool to modify specific fields of a project without affecting others ('Only supplied fields change'). It also sets a precondition ('owned active Project'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, so it falls short of the top score.

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