amulen_update_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context beyond that: an admin permission requirement and the non-obvious side effect that renaming also changes the project slug. That slug-change warning is the kind of consequence an agent could not infer from structured fields, though it stops short of saying whether existing links break or whether omitted fields are left untouched.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value information: the mutation scope first, then the admin restriction and the slug side effect. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple three-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers permissions and the slug side effect, which are the main risks. The notable remaining gap is partial-update behavior for the two optional nullable fields, which an agent would need in order to call this correctly.

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 carries the burden, and it only partly does: 'rename' maps to 'nombre' and 'description' maps to 'descripcion', but the required 'project_slug' identifier is never mentioned and the null defaults are not explained (i.e., whether passing null clears a field or leaves it unchanged). The name/description mapping is useful but the partial-update semantics remain ambiguous.

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 names specific verbs and a resource ('Rename a project or change its description'), so an agent knows exactly which two fields this mutates and on which entity. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling update tools (amulen_update_task, amulen_update_checklist_item), though the resource noun makes the distinction largely self-evident.

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?

It gives a precondition ('project admins only') and an implicit use case (renaming or editing a description), which is more than nothing. It never states when not to use it, nor does it point to an alternative such as a broader project-update or create path, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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