Update / overwrite project (DESTRUCTIVE)

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining exactly what is destroyed: the stored document is REPLACED, and with merge=false the supplied `project` becomes the entire new document. It also discloses that the real id is preserved and that revision checks refuse stale updates, adding valuable behavioral context about concurrency and safety.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the destructive warning, explains both merge modes with a concrete example, and ends with the concurrency safeguard. The structure moves from the most critical safety information to supporting parameter behavior.

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?

For a destructive, 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers default org behavior indirectly via the schema, explains merge modes, revision safety, id preservation, and the full-document PUT semantics. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly without consulting additional documentation.

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 schema already documents all five parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by calling shallow-merge "recommended," explaining that merge=false requires a complete valid project, and noting that the project's real id is always preserved. This extra context helps the agent choose parameter values correctly.

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 states a specific action and resource: "Save changes to an existing project via a full-document PUT" and immediately clarifies the destructive semantics. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_project, rename_project, and delete_project by targeting existing projects and overwriting their content.

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 tool gives clear context for when it applies: updating an existing project rather than creating or deleting one. It also provides guidance on choosing merge=true vs merge=false, recommending the shallow-merge mode. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the existing-project framing is strong enough.

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