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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency/destructive profile, yet the description adds real value beyond them: partial-update semantics ('Only the fields passed change'), that '' clears a field, that the prior version is retained (recoverability), and the permission requirement. It doesn't describe error behavior or response shape, keeping it at 4.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with the mutation verb and the field list before the behavioral caveats and cross-reference. The parenthetical field explanations are justified, though the sentence is long enough to be slightly harder to scan.

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 5-param mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies field meanings, clearing semantics, versioning, permission, and a viewing alternative, which is nearly everything needed. It omits failure/validation behavior, so not a 5.

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 only 20%, so the description must carry the load and largely does, glossing each of status, whereWeLeftOff, description, and aiContext. It also documents the empty-string clearing convention, a semantic not present in the schema; only the required 'project' param is left unglossed (self-evident).

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 ('Change') and resource ('a project's'), then enumerates the exact mutable fields (description, status, whereWeLeftOff, aiContext). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like fenbs_rename_project and fenbs_update_item without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (editing project fields) and explicitly points to fenbs_get_context as the read counterpart, plus states the permission prerequisite. It stops short of exclusions, e.g. it never says 'to rename the project use fenbs_rename_project', so a sibling-routing gap remains.

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