update_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond basic 'update' by explaining partial update semantics ('Only the provided fields will be changed') and permission requirements ('Requires owner or admin permissions'). It does not mention return values or error handling, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action and fields, the second provides crucial semantic and authorization details.

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 simple mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, fields, partial-update behavior, and permissions. It does not describe the response format, but that is less critical given the straightforward nature of the tool and the richness of the schema.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that only provided fields are modified, which is a semantic about parameter optionality and partial updates, thereby enriching 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update a project's settings' and enumerates specific fields (title, description, programming language, topics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_issue or update_merge_request by resource and scope.

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 clear context: 'Only the provided fields will be changed' signals partial updates, and 'Requires owner or admin permissions' sets a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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