update_project

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses write operation, partial updates, case sensitivity, business rule overrides, duration calculation, lifecycle constraints, StructureCode format, and PPL-only fields. Comprehensive 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?

The description is detailed but well-structured with bullet points for important constraints. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Good organization aids readability.

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?

Given tool complexity (3 params, nested objects, many constraints) and no output schema, the description covers numerous behavioral aspects and constraints. Lacks explanation of return value, but otherwise thorough.

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 67%. The description adds significant value for the 'updates' parameter: field ID case sensitivity, duration calculation, lifecycle constraints, StructureCode format, and reference to list_field_reference(). For 'project_id' and 'attributes', minimal extra info, but overall adds meaning beyond schema.

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 'Update an existing project (partial payload)', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project, delete_project, and multiple read-only tools.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use (partial updates), constraints (case-sensitive fields, business rules), and suggests list_field_reference() for writable fields. Does not explicitly contrast with all siblings but gives clear context.

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