vk_post_projects_9978989ab223

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions authentication, parameter aliases, and top-level field handling, but does not disclose response format, side effects, or idempotency. The statement that body is 'optional' contradicts the schema's required field, undermining transparency.

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 short but repeats 'Updates a project' and ends with an unresolved 'see below'. It could be tightened, but it is still reasonably front-loaded with the key action.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return values and errors. It covers authentication and parameter passing but omits response behavior and fails to resolve the optional/required body contradiction, leaving the tool under-specified for reliable 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both id and body, so the baseline is 3. However, the description explicitly calls the body field 'optional' while the schema marks it required, creating confusion. It adds useful notes about aliases and top-level fields, but the contradiction hurts the score.

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 'Updates a project' and specifies the raw REST proxy endpoint POST /projects/{id}. It distinguishes from adding a task, though it does not differentiate among the many sibling project 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?

The description provides some context ('Raw Vikunja REST proxy', authentication required, payload placement) but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. The phrase 'see below' is dangling and provides no additional guidance.

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