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

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: re-derivation of criteria on title/audience/description change, no-op for empty patch, timezone default. Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), and no contradiction.

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?

Single paragraph but well-organized: purpose first, then replace-all behavior, then incremental editing, then timezone default. Every sentence adds value, though slightly lengthy.

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 the complexity (multi-mode update, side effects, optional fields) and presence of output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: two editing modes, no-op behavior, timezone handling, and link to get_project/list_projects for criteria ids.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: explains that timezone defaults to US Eastern, clarifies addCriteria/removeCriteria roles, and states omitted fields are unchanged. Schema already has descriptions for some fields, but the description provides context for how they interact.

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?

Clearly states 'Updates a project's title, audience, description, tone, freshness window, timezone, or relevance criteria, and returns the updated project with its criteria.' The verb 'updates' and resource 'project' are explicit, and the list of updatable fields distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_project or delete_project.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use replace-all (when changing title/audience/description) vs incremental editing (using addCriteria/removeCriteria). Also notes date defaults. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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