yougile_update_project

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

The description mentions soft-delete and the '-' convention for removing users, but both are already fully specified in the input schema. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so no additional behavioral context (e.g., permissions, reversibility) is provided beyond what structured fields already convey.

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 a single, tightly scoped sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key usage nuance. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of obvious 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?

For a simple update tool with four well-documented parameters and a destructive annotation, the description is largely sufficient. However, it does not clarify whether the 'users' map fully replaces existing assignments or merges with them, which is a meaningful ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter (id, title, users, deleted) described. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states; the '-' tip is redundant with the schema's users property description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a resource ('project') and enumerates the exact updateable aspects (title, users, soft-delete). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting other resources.

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 context is clear: use to update a project's title, user assignments, or deletion status. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the resource-specific nature makes the intent unambiguous.

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