Rename / update project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While it lists the mutable fields, it does not indicate whether the tool overwrites all fields at once, whether partial updates are allowed, what happens to unspecified fields, or if there are any side effects (e.g., triggering notifications). The 'archived' parameter is mentioned but not explained as potentially destructive.

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 covering the main purpose efficiently. It could be slightly more structured, but it lacks any fluff. A small improvement would be to order fields by importance or include usage guidance without expanding verbosity.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and low schema parameter coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to use this tool confidently. It does not state what the response contains (e.g., the updated project object), nor does it warn about permissions or side effects. The tool modifies potentially sensitive fields like 'archived' and 'public', and missing guidance could lead to unintended consequences.

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 low (29%), and the description adds no information beyond the parameter names. For a 7-parameter tool, the description offers no new meaning for 'public', 'notes', or 'archived' which lack schema descriptions. The coverage gap is not compensated, but the schema itself describes 'color' and 'default_view' adequately, and 'project_gid' is well-documented in 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 tool changes project attributes such as name, notes, color, default view, or archived state. It effectively distinguishes it as an update tool from creation or duplication siblings like project_create or project_duplicate, but does not explicitly differentiate from portfolio_update or custom_field_update.

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 (e.g., user must own or have permission on the project), nor does it suggest scenarios where sibling tools like section_update or enum_option_update would be more appropriate.

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