Update a project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, setting expectations for a non-read, potentially side-effectful operation. The description adds that the operation uses PATCH and requires 'board_or_agent' authorization, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what specific changes are irreversible, what side effects occur, or what the output schema contains.

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 description is very short (two sentences) but omits critical information. The first line repeats the title, and the second line is a technical detail that, while useful, does not compensate for the lack of parameter guidance or usage context. It is too brief to be effective.

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—two required parameters with deeply nested objects in the body—the description is severely incomplete. There is no explanation of return values despite an output schema existing. The agent lacks sufficient information to correctly invoke this tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description does not add any meaning to the parameters—it does not explain the 'path' or 'body' parameters, nor does it describe the many nested fields in the body. An agent cannot understand what to pass without additional documentation.

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 'Update a project', which is a specific verb-resource pair. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like pc_patch_issues_by_id or pc_patch_goals_by_id, nor does it explain how it differs from other project-related tools such as pc_post_companies_by_company_id_projects (create) or pc_delete_projects_by_id.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indication of when not to use it. The description only provides a technical line about the HTTP method and authorization class, which does not help the agent decide contextually.

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