update_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses partial-update semantics, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, validation failures, or what happens if projectId does not exist. This is meaningful but incomplete behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences with no wasted language. The action and partial-update rule are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 project-mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema parameter descriptions, the definition is too thin. It leaves the required projectId undocumented and does not explain permissions, side effects, or return behavior.

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 for all five parameters. It names four optional fields, but those names are already present in the schema, and it omits the required projectId entirely while providing no format or meaning for values such as 'users'.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Change a project's name, problem, users or goal.' It is clear this is a project mutation tool rather than a create, delete, or read tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings such as archive_project or set_project_mode.

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 says 'Only the fields you pass are changed,' which clarifies partial-update behavior, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_project, archive_project, set_project_mode, or other project-related siblings. Prerequisites such as requiring an existing project are also unstated.

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