update_project

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies mutation but lacks details on side effects, error handling, permissions, or idempotency. The undocumented 'kwargs' parameter further reduces transparency.

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 with two sentences, but the second sentence is slightly run-on. Still, it conveys key points concisely without unnecessary words.

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?

Despite an output schema, the description omits details about updatable fields or expected behavior for 'kwargs'. The tool has 4 parameters and no parameter descriptions, making the description incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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%, and the description only explains 'verbosity' and 'session_id' defaults. The critical 'kwargs' parameter, likely for specifying fields to update, is not explained, adding minimal semantic value.

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 'Updates details of an existing project.' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project, delete_project, and get_project.

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 mentions default session behavior and verbosity options, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative update tools (e.g., update_epic) or state when not to use this tool.

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