update_project

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

The openWorldHint annotation is thin, so the description carries the burden — and it delivers. It discloses remote state mutation, the permission prerequisite, and a specific error taxonomy (validation, conflict, permission, rate-limit) rather than silent application of invalid requests. This side-effect and failure-mode disclosure goes well beyond what the annotation provides.

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 reasonably compact and front-loads purpose before usage and behavior. However, the clause 'use required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented' is template noise here, since this tool has zero required parameters and no pagination fields. A tight edit removing that filler would earn a higher score.

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?

For a 23-parameter mutation tool with only openWorldHint set, the description covers purpose, when to use it, side effects, permissions, and error behavior — a lot of ground. The main gap is no mention of the response shape, which is more noticeable in absence of an output schema. Overall it's well matched to the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuinely useful guidance on the project_id format (numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path). However, it references group_id and pagination fields that don't exist in this 23-parameter schema, slightly muddying the otherwise clean support. The correct baseline plus the small inconsistency balance out to a 3.

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 names a specific verb (update) and resource (project settings) and enumerates concrete settings (description, visibility, default branch, feature access levels), making the purpose immediately clear. It differentiates from create and note tools, though not by a specific sibling name. This slightly generic reference to 'the corresponding create tool' keeps it from a 5.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('for an existing resource') and names the alternative categories ('choose the corresponding create tool for a new resource and a note tool for discussion-only text'). It also warns about permissions and error conditions, giving the agent full decision context. This is exactly the level of routing guidance needed for a 100+ sibling toolset.

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