vikunja_update_project

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing Vikunja project' and fails to mention whether the update is partial, what side effects occur, required permissions, or the response format. This provides no transparency beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it lacks helpful details, which keeps it from receiving a higher score.

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 has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not explain the update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement), the meaning of the required project_id, or what happens on success/failure. More context is needed for an agent to use it confidently.

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 schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already documents, but it also does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 states a clear action (update) and resource (an existing Vikunja project), which is easy to understand. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling vk_put_projects_* tools that also appear to update projects.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vikunja_create_project, vikunja_delete_project, or the numerous vk_put_projects_* siblings. The need to update a project is only implied by the tool name and description.

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