deployado_update_project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note that omitted fields are left untouched, no mention that changing repository_url or default_branch affects future deployments, no confirmation of mutation scope.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the partial-update semantics being unstated.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain partial-update behavior and the impact of repository_url/default_branch changes. Neither is covered, leaving an agent to infer the mutation's blast radius.

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%, so each of the five parameters is already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description names two of the five (name, description) and hand-waves the rest as 'other settings', adding no meaning beyond 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Update a project's ... settings') that clearly distinguishes it from delete_project, get_project, update_app and other siblings. However, 'or other settings' is a vague catch-all that omits the two most consequential fields actually in the schema (default_branch, repository_url).

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus create_project, delete_project, or update_app. It also never states the key usage fact implied by the schema: that only project_id is required and all other fields are optional, so callers can perform a partial update.

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