patchProject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Updates', which implies mutation, but does not disclose permissions, idempotency, partial update behavior, or error handling. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise (4 words). While brevity is valued, it lacks necessary context like what fields can be updated or how to format the request. It is not overly verbose, but it is under-specified.

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?

The tool has a complex nested input schema and no output schema. The description does not explain how to structure the requestBody, the expected response, or any constraints. It is incomplete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (projectId and requestBody). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given that the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specified Project.' clearly identifies a verb (Updates) and a resource (Project). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like patchAllWorkItems, patchComment, etc., which also patch resources. It lacks specificity about what aspects of the project are updated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createProject or deleteProject. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent would have no help deciding between patchProject and other patch or modify tools.

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