autotask_update_project

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses partial update behavior and a required parameter pairing (assignedResourceRoleID with assignedResourceID). However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, or potential irreversibility of status changes. Moderate transparency.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by a practical use case. No wasted words; every sentence 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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and a key use case but lacks guidance on parameter interactions, error handling, and return format. Adequate but gaps leave room for improvement.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, providing thorough parameter details. The description adds a common use case and notes a parameter dependency, but these are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description adds minimal extra understanding beyond 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?

Description clearly states 'Update an existing project in Autotask', uses specific verb+resource, and distinguishes from siblings like autotask_create_project and autotask_search_projects. Additional detail on partial update and common use case reinforces purpose.

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?

Description provides a common use case ('set status=5 to mark complete') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like autotask_create_project or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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