update_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add one useful behavioral fact: 'Requires write permission'. However, it does not disclose partial-update semantics, error behavior, or response contents, so transparency is only partial for a mutating 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 filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the permission note earns its place as the only additional operational information provided.

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 tool with 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain whether this performs a full replacement or partial patch, which fields are updatable, or what the caller should expect in return, forcing the agent to infer too much.

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 only 14%, so the description should compensate for the many undocumented parameters, but it only clarifies `id` via 'by ID'. The meanings of slug, title, URLs, body_html, skill_ids, category_ids, and other fields are left entirely to inference from their names.

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 the exact action ('Update'), the resource ('an existing project'), and the selection criterion ('by ID'). This cleanly distinguishes it from create_project, delete_project, and the get/list siblings without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

'Existing project by ID' implies when to use this tool, and 'Requires write permission' gives a prerequisite, but no alternatives are named and no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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