freeagent_update_project

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only indicates that the tool updates, but does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, if there are side effects, permission requirements, or destructive potential. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the implications of invoking it.

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 description is extremely concise, begins with the action verb, and contains no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, error handling, prerequisites, or how updates are applied (e.g., partial vs. full replacement). This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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?

All 13 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, which is appropriate here.

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 verb 'Update', resource 'project', and system 'FreeAgent'. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from sibling 'freeagent_create_project' by specifying 'existing'. However, it does not elaborate on which fields can be updated, which would enhance clarity.

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 like 'freeagent_create_project' or 'freeagent_get_project'. The description merely states its function without context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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