Update Project Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the permission model, that stages and categories replace the whole previous list, and that archiving preserves updates, tasks and files. It does not say what failure looks like when the caller lacks permission, nor whether partial updates are atomic.

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?

Densely front-loaded with em-dash clauses; nearly every phrase carries scope or permission information. The punctuation-heavy run-on makes it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be, but there is little wasted text.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the consequential behaviors: permissions, replacement semantics, archive side effects, and the confirm-first norm. Remaining gaps are error/response behavior and how the project is identified, which the schema already handles.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: client accepts 'none' to make the project internal, follow means blockers and updates appear in the morning summary, and client_visible covers tasks plus client-shown documents. Identification params (project/session/repo) are left entirely to 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Changes a project') and enumerates the exact fields it can modify, including archive/unarchive. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_project or use_project without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('Only when the person asks; confirm the change first') and per-field permission gates ('only the project lead or an admin', follow is 'anyone in the team'). It does not name alternative tools for creating vs. switching projects, so routing to siblings is left implicit.

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