update-project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the underlying PATCH endpoint, confirms partial-update semantics ('only the provided fields are sent'), and cites the SDK method it mirrors. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what the response contains, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by implementation detail and then the constraint. Nothing is padded and each sentence carries distinct 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?

For a 3-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, update semantics, and the key precondition. The remaining gap is the return value and any auth/permission expectations, which are not addressed.

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 would be 3, but the description adds a genuine cross-parameter constraint the schema cannot express: at least one of title/color must be supplied even though only folder_uuid is formally required. That is real added meaning beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a project's title and/or color') and pins the exact fields affected. The sibling list contains create-project, delete-project, and reorder-project, and this description makes clear it handles none of those concerns, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 'at least one of title/color is required' rule gives a usable precondition for invoking it, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over reorder-project or how it relates to the other project tools. Usage is implied by the field list rather than spelled out.

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