update_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Updates an existing project', with no information about how updates are applied (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), what happens if the project doesn't exist, whether changes are reversible, or side effects like archiving. For a mutation tool, this is severely inadequate.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It merely restates the tool name without adding any useful context. A concise description should pack information efficiently; this one is vacuous and doesn't earn its place.

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 the tool has 9 parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description fails to provide essential context. It does not clarify which identifier (key, projectId, projectKey) is used to target the project, how the update behaves with partial input, or what the response looks like. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly without relying solely on parameter names.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema provides detailed meanings for all 9 parameters, including identifiers, booleans, and an enum. Thus the description adds no extra value beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score.

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 'Updates an existing project' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (project), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_project and delete_project. This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly communicates the tool's core purpose.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when it should be preferred over add_project or delete_project, or any exclusions. There is zero usage context beyond the action itself.

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