Update Project

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds important behavioral context: omitted fields are left as-is, and the entry ID is preserved. This aligns with idempotentHint and provides additional detail beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, partial update behavior, and usage guidance. No redundant or irrelevant content. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool has 13 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides essential usage context but does not explain the return value or response format. An agent may need to infer the output or handle errors without guidance, leaving a completeness gap.

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 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already explained. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond stating that only fields to change should be provided. Therefore, the description does not significantly enhance the schema's semantic clarity.

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 it updates an existing project, distinguishes from delete+recreate by noting it preserves the entry ID, and instructs to first use get_projects to find the ID. This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates from sibling tools like create_project and delete_project.

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 gives clear guidance: use get_projects first to find the ID, and prefer this over delete+recreate because it preserves the entry ID. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the partial update semantics imply it is for modifying specific fields rather than replacing the entire project.

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