edit_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and adds significant behavioral detail: 'Only provided fields are changed' reveals partial-update semantics, and the null-clearing and tag-set-replacement rules explain important side effects. It does not mention response format or permission requirements, but for a straightforward edit tool the key mutation behaviors are disclosed.

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 tightly packed sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and each additional sentence adds a distinct behavioral rule that earns its place.

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 10-parameter edit tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral nuances (partial update, clearing fields, tag replacement) while the schema covers types and enums. It is missing minor context such as what happens to unmentioned fields or whether status can be any value, but the essential information is present.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description gives meaningful semantics for the non-obvious parameters: null values for deferDate, dueDate, or reviewInterval clear those fields, and tagIds replaces the entire tag set. The remaining parameters (name, note, type, status, flagged) are self-evident and the schema already supplies enums and types.

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 opens with 'Edit an existing project,' a specific verb and resource that exactly identifies the operation. The second sentence clarifies it is a partial update, which distinguishes it from replace-style edits, and the sibling list contains no other tool that edits projects, so there is no ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose edit_project over siblings such as complete_project, drop_project, or move_project. The description only explains parameter-level usage (clearing dates, replacing tags) but not tool-selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer context.

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