autotask_update_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the partial update behavior but lacks details on permissions, error handling, idempotency, or side effects. The schema includes a note about assignedResourceRoleID dependency, but the description does not highlight important behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides a practical use case. Every word contributes value without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the partial update and a key use case but does not guide the agent to prerequisites (e.g., obtaining projectId via search) or warn about interdependent fields like assignedResourceID and assignedResourceRoleID.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only minimal value: it restates the partial update concept and the status=5 use case, which the schema already covers. It does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what is 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 description clearly states the action 'Update an existing project' and the resource 'project in Autotask'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like autotask_create_project by emphasizing updates and providing a specific use case (setting status=5 to mark Complete).

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 that only provided fields are updated (partial update) and gives a common use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for creation) or list alternatives, though the sibling tools implicitly cover those.

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