Update Project

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only existing projects can be targeted and which attributes change, but it omits what happens on a rename (does the key propagate to linked entries?), whether unknown names error out, and why the operation is flagged non-idempotent.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource scoped up front and no filler. It is efficient but arguably under-specified for a 5-parameter mutation tool, so brevity comes at the cost of the guidance missing elsewhere.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, a tool with zero required parameters gives the agent no instruction on which parameter identifies the target project or what happens if only use_test_db is supplied, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 80%, so the schema already explains name, new_name, absolute_path and project_number. The description's field list mirrors those descriptions without adding syntax or guidance, and it says nothing about use_test_db, which is undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing project in the registry') and enumerates the mutable fields (path, number, name), so an agent can distinguish it from create_entry/update_entry style tools. It does not name the closest siblings (register_project, delete_project) to draw the boundary explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 phrase 'existing project' weakly implies this is for already-registered projects rather than new ones, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative (register_project for creating, get_project for reading). An agent must infer the selection rule from the surrounding tool list.

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