Update subproject

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-annotation behavior: 'One undo step,' telling the agent the change is a single reversible history entry. It stops short of saying what happens to fields not supplied (partial vs full update), which would push it to a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and fields, followed by the routing alternatives and the undo note. The field enumeration partially duplicates the schema, but it aids quick scanning and keeps the description compact.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers scope, routing and undo semantics; the only minor gap is behavior for omitted fields on a partial update.

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 every parameter's meaning, formats and the date pattern are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the field list and adds no syntax or constraints beyond it, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Changes a subproject') and enumerates exactly what can be changed (name, start, finish, notes, pinning, calendar, color, code). It also names the sibling tools for the adjacent objects, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from rillsoft_project_update, rillsoft_task_update and rillsoft_subproject_delete.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: main project -> rillsoft_project_update, task -> rillsoft_task_update, deletion -> rillsoft_subproject_delete. This is textbook when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance.

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