vk_post_projects_8d2cec004db2

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does mention authentication, raw REST proxy behavior, top-level parameter placement, and alias handling, but it omits response format, error behavior, and side effects. It also states the body field is optional while the schema marks it as required, creating confusion.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, but the first sentence is duplicated verbatim. The rest of the sentences provide valuable proxy details, but the redundancy prevents 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?

The tool is a raw REST proxy with no output schema or annotations, so the description needs to be thorough. It covers authentication, aliases, and parameter placement, but it does not explain the response format, error cases, or the apparent contradiction between the 'optional' body and the schema's required body. The description is insufficient for a mutation-like proxy 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema: the body is a JSON payload, path parameters are top-level fields, and camelCase/snake_case aliases are accepted. This helps the agent construct the request correctly.

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 the action ('Update a team <-> project relation') and gives the exact REST endpoint (POST /projects/{projectID}/teams/{teamID}), which distinguishes it from other proxy tools. It also explains the primary use case ('update the permission that team has').

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: updating a team's permission on a project. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is a minor gap given the large number of sibling tools.

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