projects_update

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 mentions the HTTP method (PATCH) and response structure, but it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what specific fields are updatable, permission requirements, or side effects (e.g., validation errors). For an update 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 concise (two sentences), but the first sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema's endpoint. It could be more front-loaded by stating the purpose immediately without the curl-like detail. No wasted words, but the structure is average.

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 output schema is present and schema coverage is full, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 8 parameters, the description is minimal. It covers the basic update action but lacks behavioral context like partial updates, validation rules, or relationships to senders/notifications. It is minimally adequate.

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%, with each parameter having a meaningful description. The description adds nothing beyond the schema—it merely repeats that the response contains project attributes. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly.

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 is for updating a project by sending a PATCH request to a specific endpoint. It mentions the response body will contain the project attributes, which aligns with the update action. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like `projects_create` or `projects_delete`, but the verb 'update' and the PATCH method provide sufficient clarity.

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., project must exist), nor does it clarify that updates are partial (PATCH vs PUT). The sibling tools include other project operations, but the description offers no comparative context.

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