update_project_uids

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It states 'Scan for missing UIDs,' which misleadingly suggests a read-only operation, but the parameter description reveals that the default behavior is to fix UIDs (a mutating action). It does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or any other 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with a verb and resource, so it is concise and structurally efficient. However, it is under-specified and lacks important context, making it less helpful than it could be while still being brief.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a complex relationship with sibling tools. The description only says 'Scan for missing UIDs,' which fails to explain the tool's actual mutation behavior, what it returns, or how it relates to fix_missing_uids and list_missing_uids. It is severely incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, and its description ('Only report missing UIDs, do not fix them') is clear. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema already provides adequate semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 says 'Scan for missing UIDs,' but the tool name is 'update_project_uids' and the check_only parameter ('Only report missing UIDs, do not fix them') implies that the default behavior is to fix or update UIDs, not just scan. This is misleading and does not clearly distinguish the tool from siblings like list_missing_uids or fix_missing_uids.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fix_missing_uids or list_missing_uids. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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