wetrack_update_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two important behaviors: partial update semantics (only sent fields change) and the automatic sprint recalculation when timeline is modified. This goes beyond a simple 'update' and informs the agent of side effects, though it doesn't cover potential validation or permission requirements.

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 efficient: a concise opening (two sentences) that front-loads the critical behavioral notes, followed by a compact, clearly formatted Args list. No filler or repetition – every sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations), the description is complete. It explains the partial-update semantics, the sprint recalculation side effect, and provides per-parameter meaning and format. The output schema exists, so return-value details are unnecessary. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 9 parameters with meaningful descriptions: 'project_id: The project UUID', 'start_date: New start date 'YYYY-MM-DD'', and 'tags: New tag list (replaces existing)'. This adds essential semantics (formats, replacement behavior) not present in the schema, fully covering every parameter.

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 'Update a project's fields' with the qualifier 'partial update — only send what changes', which precisely defines the operation and distinguishes it from creation/deletion siblings like wetrack_create_project and wetrack_delete_project. The verb-resource pairing is explicit.

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?

Provides concrete usage guidance: instructs to send only changed fields and notes that timeline changes automatically recalculate sprints. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, the partial-update instruction is a strong, actionable guideline for correct invocation.

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