update_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates a project, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid domain), or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits like side effects, authentication needs, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., projectId uses env var fallback, name has length constraints, customDomain allows null for removal). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing updatable fields ('name or custom domain'), but doesn't provide additional context like formatting rules or interactions between parameters.

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') and the resource ('project'), specifying what can be updated ('name or custom domain'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project' or 'delete_project' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_preset' or 'update_signing', which target different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions (e.g., what cannot be updated), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_project' for viewing or 'create_project' for initial setup. Usage is implied only by the verb 'Update'.

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