vk_post_projects_89e8a729a046

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

The description discloses authentication requirements, camelCase/snake_case alias handling, and its raw proxy nature. However, it inconsistently calls the body field 'optional' while the schema marks it required, and it omits side effects, response format, or error behavior. With no annotations, this leaves notable gaps.

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 repeats 'Update a user <-> project relation' verbatim, which is unnecessary. Otherwise, it is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the duplication wastes a sentence.

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?

The description covers the endpoint, authentication, and parameter passing conventions, which is helpful for a proxy tool. However, it lacks details on body structure, expected response, and side effects, and the 'optional body' wording conflicts with the schema, leaving the invocation incomplete.

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?

It clarifies that path/query parameters are top-level fields and that aliases are accepted, which adds value over the schema. Yet the body's content is only described as 'the user you want to update' without specifying required fields, and the optional/required discrepancy undermines parameter clarity.

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 it updates a user-project relation, explicitly names the REST endpoint (POST /projects/{projectID}/users/{userID}), and gives the common use case (updating user permissions). This distinguishes it from sibling proxy/update tools.

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?

It explains the primary use case (updating permission a user has on a project) and signals it's a raw proxy for direct API calls. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is reasonably clear.

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