Projects Update

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the specific fields that can be updated, which is useful context, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether partial updates are supported or how unspecified fields behave. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify whether the update is partial (only provided fields are changed) or full replacement, nor what the response contains. While annotations provide safety info, the tool's usage semantics are under-specified for an agent to invoke it correctly with confidence.

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 only 20% (only 'id' is described). The description lists the parameter names (name, description, visibility, mode) but adds no additional meaning about their semantics, allowed values, or constraints beyond what the schema enums provide. For example, 'mode' and 'visibility' are not explained. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 the tool updates a project's fields (name, description, visibility, mode). It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('project'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like projects_create, projects_get, and projects_delete.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to modify project attributes) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not say when not to use it or mention related tools like projects_attach-asset, but the purpose is clear enough to infer usage.

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