Update project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers none of it. It does not state whether this is a partial or full update, what happens to omitted fields, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what the body object must contain.

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 single sentence is short but not concise in the useful sense — it is under-specified rather than economical. There is no front-loaded detail because there is no detail at all.

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 mutation tool with two required parameters, a free-form nested body object, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations or output schema, this description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot invoke it correctly without guessing the body shape.

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% for both required parameters, and the description adds no meaning. The 'body' parameter is a free-form nested object with additionalProperties: {}, so without any description the agent has no way to know which project fields are updatable.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, offering no verb-specific detail, scope, or differentiation from siblings like update_task, update_request, or update_change. An agent cannot tell what fields are updatable or how this differs from create_project/delete_project beyond the obvious verb.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no alternatives named. Usage is only weakly implied by the sibling set (create/delete/update_project), but the description itself provides nothing about when this is the right call.

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