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 burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema: the automatic :MODIFIED: timestamp update and the section-level write mechanism that avoids full-file rewrites. It does not specify whether properties are merged or replaced, but the key side effects are surfaced.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying necessary information: the action and scope, the section-level behavior, the required-field invariant, the automatic timestamp, and a pointer to the format guide. There is no filler, repetition, or restatement of the tool name.

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 moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers essential operational detail: what can be updated, the required-field constraint, the automatic timestamp side effect, and where to find format specifications. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but those are less critical for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by grouping section+content as a unit and stating the at-least-one requirement across tags, content+section, properties, or headline. This helps the agent understand valid invocation combinations.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a project's section content, properties, headline, or tags.' It also clarifies the granularity of the operation ('section-level updates'), which distinguishes it from related tools like create_project and update_task. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: updating an existing project's fields, with an explicit recommendation to use section-level updates 'to avoid rewriting the entire file.' It also states the required-field invariant. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for creation or other operations, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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