update_project

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

The description only indicates a mutation ('update') but provides no details on side effects, reversibility, authorization needs, or behavior (e.g., partial updates, validation). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose such traits.

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, which is concise but somewhat under-specified. It is not verbose, but it could include more essential detail without harming conciseness.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to specify that at least one optional field must be provided (or that updating without fields is allowed), and does not mention response behavior or error scenarios.

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, and the tool description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond their names and types. The description does not clarify what each field does (e.g., announcement format, effect of is_completed).

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 verb (update) and resource (existing project), making the basic purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like add_project or delete_project beyond the inherent operation difference.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_project for new, delete_project for removal). There is no mention of prerequisites such as project existence or typical workflow context.

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