Update Shortcut Project

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'update fields' without mentioning that the mutation is potentially destructive, that a 'confirm' parameter is required for execution, or that a 'dry_run' option exists. This is a significant transparency gap for a write operation.

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, concise sentence that is immediately readable and front-loaded. There is no unnecessary information, but it omits important contextual richness that could be added without bloating the text.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is far too minimal to guide an agent effectively; it does not explain the confirm/dry_run behavior, the write semantics, or the return value. The tool needs substantially more context to be used 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?

Schema description coverage is only 11%, yet the description names no parameters or field categories. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage. For example, it does not mention that fields like name, color, archived, or abbreviation are updatable.

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 'Update fields on an existing Shortcut project' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (project), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_epic. However, it lacks any specification of which fields can be updated, making it slightly less precise than ideal.

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 such as create_project or delete_project. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without information about appropriate usage scenarios.

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