Update Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context about automatic handling of Taiga's optimistic-concurrency version field and instructs not to pass it, which goes beyond annotation hints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and key behavioral instruction. The second sentence is a crucial warning about the version field. Every word earns its place.

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 9-parameter update tool, the description covers the critical partial-patch behavior and version handling. It doesn't spell out return values or permissions, but given no output schema and reasonable sibling context, it's sufficiently complete.

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 67%, so the schema does much of the work. The description adds essential semantics: only include fields to change (partial patch) and avoid passing version, which is not in the schema. This compensates for lack of parameter descriptions on name, description, and is_private.

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 'Update an existing project' with a specific verb and resource, and further explains it's a partial patch. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_create, project_delete, and project_get.

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 implies this tool is used when modifying only select fields of an existing project, thanks to the 'partial patch' instruction. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context and sibling tool names make usage clear.

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