Edit project

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context that the brief is AI context and that autoCheck controls rank-check scheduling, but it does not explain partial-update behavior or what happens to omitted fields.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and lists the editable fields without filler. Every clause contributes to understanding what can be changed.

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 simple update tool with rich schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers the mutable fields adequately. It could mention that only supplied fields are changed, but the required projectId and optional fields make the basic contract clear.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including projectId and the autoCheck enum. The description adds a little meaning by explaining the brief and schedule, but it does not go beyond the schema in a substantial way.

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 states specific actions on a specific resource: renaming a project, changing its brief, or changing its rank-check schedule. It is clear enough to distinguish this from siblings like move_project or remove_project, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 the tool is used by listing editable fields, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings such as move_project, remove_project, or set_project_markets. An agent must infer the boundaries from the tool name and schema.

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