wealthbox.projects.update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to mention whether updates are partial or full replacements, how the 'body' parameter interacts with individual fields, whether special permissions are required, or what the response contains. The phrase 'pass raw body' hints at an alternative input method but does not explain its behavior or consequences.

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 only two sentences and is front-loaded with the primary action. There is no fluff or redundancy. However, its brevity contributes to the lack of critical information, so it is concise but not optimally structured for completeness.

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?

The tool has six parameters, a nested body object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no additional context: it does not explain return values, parameter semantics, or how to structure a raw body. This is far from sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'raw body' without explaining how it relates to the other parameters (id, name, status, due_date, description). No parameter meanings, formats, or constraints are given, leaving the agent to guess for all six parameters.

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 action ('Update project by id') and the resource ('project'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, list, or delete. The addition of 'You can also pass raw body' hints at an extra capability, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when a raw body should be used instead of structured fields, or any exclusion scenarios. The description implies use when updating an existing project, but gives no explicit context.

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