Update project

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

Annotations carry only idempotentHint, so the description does most of the work: it discloses partial-update semantics, the absence of reanalysis/rendering side effects, the follow-up tools needed to realise those effects, and the shape of the return object. It stops short of stating permission requirements, reversibility, or that a returned needsReanalyze flag implies a follow-up call is mandatory, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler: capability and field list first, patch semantics and the not-does boundary second, sibling routing and return shape last. Each sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

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?

For a mutation tool with a 26-key nested settings object and no output schema, the description supplies the patch contract, the non-effects, the routing to reanalyze_project/rerender_clips, and the four return keys. Nothing required to invoke or interpret the call correctly is missing.

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% and every parameter (including the nested settings keys, the clear enum and the deprecated captionPosition) is documented inline. The description's parenthetical field list only re-summarises a subset of what the schema already states, so it adds no meaning beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (rename/change saved settings) and resource (project), then enumerates the affected settings groups (focus, instructions, clip length, maxClips, caption style, framing, pauses). It explicitly separates itself from reanalyze_project and rerender_clips, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

States the patch condition ('only the fields you pass change'), what this tool does NOT do ('Does not re-pick clips or re-render'), and which sibling to use for each of those cases with the trigger condition. Both alternatives are named explicitly.

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