update_project

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

No annotations exist, and the description only states partial updating. It does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or response format. Minimal transparency for a mutation 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?

Efficiently structured with a heading and list. No fluff, but could be slightly more concise. Front-loaded purpose is good.

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 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all fields adequately. An output schema exists (not shown) but return values are not described. Lacks disclosure of cascading effects or error scenarios.

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 description adds meaning to each parameter: e.g., schedule has allowed values, tags replaces existing, deadline is Unix timestamp. Schema has 0% description coverage, so this compensates well.

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 clearly states it updates a project's fields and lists them. It's a specific verb+resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_task.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., complete_project, delete_project). The note about only provided fields being changed is a usage detail but not a guideline.

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