eda_dmt_project_modify_project_description

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the return value is a boolean indicating success ('是否修改成功') and shows the optional nature of the description parameter. However, it omits error conditions, permission requirements, and whether an empty string clears the description.

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 compact and front-loaded with the full signature, followed by a one-line summary and return semantics. There is slight redundancy between the function name and the Chinese phrase, but overall every line 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 simple two-parameter mutation, the description gives the essential call shape and return type. Yet it lacks practical details like how to obtain the projectUuid, whether the description can be cleared, and what failure cases produce a false return. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema only describes a generic args array and windowId, so the signature in the description adds critical parameter meaning: projectUuid (string, required) and description (string, optional) in official order. It does not fully explain what a valid projectUuid looks like or how the description text is used, but it substantially compensates for the schema's lack of inner parameter definitions.

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?

Description clearly states the operation: modifying the project description, with a concrete function signature and a Chinese one-line summary. It is distinguishable from sibling project tools by naming the specific field (description), though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related tools like modify_project_friendly_name.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context such as needing an open/selected project. The usage is only implied by the tool name and the bare phrase '修改工程描述'.

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