update_project_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and it does real work: 'Replace' signals a destructive overwrite of the project state, and 'Omit empty sections' is a concrete behavioral rule for formatting the state. It does not cover permissions or additional side effects, but the key destructive trait is communicated.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action first and the clarifying constraints second. There is no fluff and no repetition of information already present in the input schema.

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?

This is a ten-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations; the output schema covers only return shape, not usage. The description does not explain how to populate each state section, how to reference the project, or when to choose this over read-only siblings, so the agent is left with significant gaps.

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%, so the description needed to compensate, but it adds only a generic 'Omit empty sections' rule and no field-level guidance. The project identifier and the intended content of notes/blocked/completed/architecture/etc. are left entirely to inference from parameter titles.

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 opens with a concrete verb ('Replace') and a concrete resource ('Project State.md'), making the tool's action and target unambiguous. Adding 'current state, not a session log' separates it from session-oriented siblings such as capture_work_session.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as maintaining current durable state and explicitly rules out session logging, which is the closest alternative behavior among the sibling tools. It does not list every alternative, but the when-to-use signal is clear.

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