pm_update_project_file

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

No annotations provided. Description only states 'partial ProjectFileUpdate' without detailing behavioral traits like destructive nature, auth requirements, or side effects. The burden is not met.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with clear structure using HTTP method and path. No wasted words; information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite 4 parameters and a nested object, the description is minimal. It does not explain the output schema, behavior for partial updates, or provide examples. The presence of output schema reduces need for return value details, but overall context is lacking.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description adds value by listing updatable fields (name, description_md, kind) for the payload object, but does not explain project_id, file_id, or x_user_id beyond their existence.

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?

Description clearly states verb (PATCH/update), resource (ProjectFile), and specific fields (name, description_md, kind). It distinguishes from siblings like pm_delete_project_file and pm_upload_project_file.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pm_upload_project_file for creation, pm_list_project_files for listing). No preconditions or exclusions mentioned.

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