basecamp_update_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action and targets, omitting details about required permissions, side effects, reversibility, or the constraint that start_date and end_date must be paired. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, concise phrase that immediately conveys the verb, resource, and key targets. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it highly scannable.

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 tool with six parameters and a pairing constraint, the description is too sparse. It does not mention that project_id is required, that at least one field should be provided, or the start/end date pairing rule. It fails to give enough operational context for an agent to use it correctly without relying solely on the schema.

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 83%, so most parameters are already documented. The description repeats the field names (e.g., name, description, access policy, schedule dates) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It neither clarifies the enum values nor the pairing requirement, so it provides baseline value only.

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 the tool updates a project and lists the specific editable attributes (name, description, access policy, schedule dates). This distinguishes it from related tools like create_project, get_project, and trash_project, which have different verbs and scopes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for existing projects, how it differs from index_update_project, or any prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without context for selection.

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