projects_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Update' implying mutation, and gives validation rules, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, partial update behavior, or return value. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 short and front-loaded with the action. The tag line and bullet points are clear, though the 'Tag: Projects' line is somewhat redundant. No waste, but could be more 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?

With no output schema and 6 parameters (33% schema coverage), the description should provide more. It does not explain isArchived, testCaseTypeId, or partial update semantics. The tool is incomplete for an update operation.

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 only 33%. The description adds validation rules for name, description, and projectPictureUrl (the latter already covered by schema), but parameters like isArchived and testCaseTypeId lack explanation. Some value added, but gaps remain.

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 says 'Update project', which is a clear verb+resource. While there are sibling tools like projects_create and projects_delete, the update action is distinct. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 description includes validation rules for name, description, and projectPictureUrl, and references a GET endpoint for available picture IDs. This provides context on constraints, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create).

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