Update project info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions HTTP PUT but doesn't disclose destructive nature (e.g., full replace vs partial update), auth needs, or side effects. Agent cannot infer behavioral traits.

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 very short (two sentences) but includes redundant HTTP method/path. It is not overly verbose, but lacks substantive content that would earn 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify what fields can be updated, the return value, or any constraints like required permissions.

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%, but the description adds no meaning to parameters. It only says 'Body: application/json'. The schema itself provides some detail, but the description fails to explain the role of fields like 'name', 'isPrivate', or the 'id' path parameter.

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 'Update project info' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from 'create' and 'get' project tools, but does not differentiate from other update tools like 'weeek_update_board' or 'weeek_update_a_task'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'weeek_create_project' or other update tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or context for invoking this tool.

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