Update Project

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral traits. It merely restates the update operation without disclosing whether it's a partial or full update, whether omitted fields are preserved, or side effects. It also fails to mention that 'name' is required even when updating other fields, which is a meaningful gap.

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 conveys exactly what the tool does. There is zero redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the parameter schema covers all fields, the description is nearly complete for a straightforward CRUD update. However, it could have mentioned the required 'name' parameter for update operations, which would have made it fully self-contained.

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 each parameter has a clear description in the schema itself. The description only lists the field names without adding extra syntax or format details. The baseline of 3 applies since the description doesn't compensate beyond the schema.

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?

Uses the specific verb 'Update' plus the resource 'project' and explicitly enumerates the mutable fields (name, description, color, icon), making the purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its resource-specific scope (project) and action, even though other project tools like create_project exist.

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 makes it clear this tool updates an existing project, but it does not state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use update_project over create_project) or mention any preconditions. Usage is implied from the verb 'Update' and the tool name, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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