Update Project

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful field-level behavior beyond that: 'Rename' implies modifying the project name, 'replace notes' implies overwriting, and changing contact/status implies reassignment. No contradiction with the annotations.

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, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and quickly lists the affected fields. Every word contributes.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple update tool but thin: it does not explain how to select the target project, how the contact unlink behaves, or what the response contains. The schema covers parameter details and annotations cover safety, so this is minimally viable rather than fully complete.

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 six parameters. The description names some fields but adds no new meaning about parameter semantics, such as the precedence of project_id over project_name or accepted status formats.

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 uses specific verbs ('Rename', 'change') on a clear resource ('project/deal') and enumerates the mutable fields: notes, contact, status. This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_project and update_opportunity_stage without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or fallback identification. Usage is only implied by the verb 'change'. With siblings like update_opportunity_stage and delete_project present, this is a notable gap.

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