update_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only indicates that updates occur, but does not state whether it performs partial or full updates, if it is destructive, or what permissions are required. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, concise and to the point. However, it could be slightly improved by clarifying that only the specified fields are updated and by removing the ambiguous 'settings'.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the update behavior (partial vs full), the response format, or any side effects. This is inadequate for an agent to confidently use the tool 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 3 parameters with 0% coverage in descriptions. The description mentions updating 'name, description' which maps to two parameters, but adds no details about constraints (e.g., length, format) and fails to explain the required 'project_id' parameter. The vague term 'settings' does not correspond to a schema property, causing confusion.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'update' and resource 'project', and lists specific fields 'name, description, or settings'. However, the mention of 'settings' is vague and not reflected in the schema, and it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_record'.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use 'create_project' instead, or any prerequisites like required permissions.

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