Save project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that returns only {id, name, url} and that addInitiatives are attached after create. However, it does not clarify update behavior (e.g., field overwrites, partial updates), permissions required, rate limits, or error cases like updating a non-existent project.

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 two sentences, front-loading the key create/update distinction, and includes all needed information without redundancy. Every part earns its place.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the create workflow well but leaves gaps about update behavior (e.g., whether addInitiatives works on update, whether description is only for updates, and field mutability). It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with conditional upsert behavior.

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%, but the description adds significant value: it explains that id determines create vs update, that name and team are required on create despite schema showing required[], that addInitiatives is only relevant after create, and clarifies the return subset. This provides conditional logic and process context that the schema alone does not.

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 'Create (no id) or update (id) a project,' which distinguishes the two modes of operation. It is specific about the resource and action, and it aligns with the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other save_* tools, though they operate on different resources.

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 explains when to use the tool with or without an id, and mentions that create requires name+team and that addInitiatives are attached after create. It does not provide explicit alternatives or context for when not to use this tool, nor does it mention exclusions or failure scenarios.

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