update_project_compile_order

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. 'Update' implies mutation, but there is no disclosure of side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or impact on existing compile order settings.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently states the purpose and scope without waste. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing essential context, so it is concise but sparse.

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 output schema may cover return values, but the description omits preconditions, session/project requirements, and the effect of timeout_s. For a mutating tool with zero annotations, this is an incomplete definition.

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 0%, and the description only hints that filesets may correspond to sources_1/sim_1. It leaves timeout_s entirely undefined, so the agent does not know the unit, purpose, or default behavior.

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?

States a specific verb 'update', a clear resource 'compile order', and explicit scope 'sources_1 and/or sim_1'. This distinguishes it from sibling get_compile_order, which reads the same resource, without needing to inspect schemas.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_compile_order or configure_simulation. Does not mention prerequisites such as an open project or active session, leaving the agent to infer context.

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