gatekeeper_update_project

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: PATCH semantics (partial update), optionality of body fields with at least one required, and null-to-clear behavior for dueDate. It also warns against sending unrequested fieldskus. These details help the agent predict mutation behavior, though it does not mention side effects or response shape.

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 dense yet well-organized: purpose first, followed by PATCH semantics, then a compact list of fields with constraints, and a final caution. Every sentence earns its place without redundant filler. The structure front-loads the most critical information (update existing project, PATCH partial semantics) before enumerating details.

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?

The description covers all calling requirements: target slug, optional fields with types/formats, and usage expectations. With no output schema, it does not describe return values, but for an update operation this is a minor omission. Error behavior on invalid slug or validation failures is also unspecified, though overall the tool is adequately documented.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by enumerating every editable field, specifying types (number, integer), value constraints (frontend|backend for type), format guidance (YYYY-MM-DD for dueDate), currency examples (KES/USD), and semantics (null to clear). It also clarifies the required target parameter (slug). This is strong compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 an explicit verb ('Update'), resource ('Gatekeeper project fields'), and scope ('existing client project'), clearly distinguishing it from create/delete/get siblings. The PATCH semantics further clarify the intent of partial modification. An agent can immediately tell this is the update tool among the gatekeeper family.

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 clearly states when to use this tool (update existing project) and gives concrete rules: provide slug, send only fields the user asked to change, at least one field required. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like gatekeeper_create_project, but the 'existing client project' wording and PATCH semantics imply the appropriate context without ambiguity.

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