Создать или изменить проект

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

Annotations already mark the tool as writable and non-destructive, so the description adds useful behavioral context: upsert semantics, the top-level-parent restriction, and the panel's rejection of invalid subprojects. It does not describe response format or partial-update effects, but there is no contradiction with 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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence carries operational value, and the repeated enum values do not create bloated text.

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 plus schema cover the core create/update semantics and parent constraint. However, the format of the category parameter (name vs id) is not specified, and partial-update behavior for omitted fields is not explained. For a tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, this leaves some ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that omitting category creates and supplying it modifies, and by adding the rule that parent_id must refer to a top-level project. Other parameters are already documented well in 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?

The title and first sentence state an exact operation: create or update a project, with the category parameter deciding which mode is used. This clearly distinguishes the tool from categories_list and categories_delete by behavior.

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 explicitly defines how to choose between creation and modification: omit the project to create, provide it to change. It also states a hard constraint on parent_id. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the create/update rule is strong routing guidance for a save tool.

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