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, and it falls short: it never states whether omitted fields are preserved (partial vs. full update), what permission level is required, whether a visibility change is reversible, or what the response contains. 'Update' implies mutation but nothing about safety or side effects is 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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and field list front-loaded; no wasted words. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but structurally it is clean and appropriately sized for what it chooses to say.

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?

A mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and no statement of partial-update semantics or required permissions. The description omits exactly the behavioral details an agent needs before executing a write, so it is not complete enough given the tool's complexity.

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% and each parameter is documented in the schema (including the project_id path/ID dual format and the visibility enum). The description only re-lists field names, adding no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the structured schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Update project') and enumerates the mutable fields (description, name, default branch, visibility, topics). It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like get_project, though it does not explicitly contrast with the other update_* tools in the family.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is the tool for changing existing project settings rather than creating or deleting one (create_repository, delete_project).

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