aap_update_project

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it uses PATCH and returns a JSON string with the updated project id and name, giving some behavioral context. However, it does not mention partial update semantics or error conditions.

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 concise, with a clear opening sentence and structured Args/Returns sections. The Args line is somewhat redundant given the schema, but overall it is efficient.

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 simplicity of the update operation and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the return value and the PATCH method, but lacks parameter semantics and usage context, leaving some gaps.

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 description merely refers to 'Fields to update' without explaining individual parameters, required project_id, or optional fields. This is insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states 'Update an AAP project (PATCH)', which is a specific verb and resource, and the PATCH method clarifies the operation type. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like aap_create_project, aap_delete_project, and aap_sync_project.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aap_create_project or aap_sync_project. The description simply states the act of updating without contextual hints or exclusions.

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