ado_update_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the async nature and the return type (OperationReference), which informs the agent about non-immediate completion. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., cascading updates to linked resources).

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's action, target fields, and a key behavioral trait (async). No redundant information.

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?

Despite no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the core functionality (what fields are updated) and a critical behavioral detail (async with OperationReference). It lacks information on permissions, error states, or how to interpret the OperationReference, but for an update tool with moderate complexity, this is largely sufficient.

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 50%, with 'name' and 'project' having descriptions. The description lists the updatable fields (name, description, visibility), which aligns with the schema but adds no extra detail (e.g., format constraints for 'description', or that 'visibility' uses an enum). It provides marginal value beyond the 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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'project', listing specific fields (name, description, visibility). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ado_create_project and ado_get_project by focusing on updating existing projects.

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 mentions that the operation is async and returns an OperationReference, which hints at polling the operation status. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create a new project) or prerequisites like permissions.

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