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

Annotations already declare this as a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses that `remove` deletes the entry and draws a security boundary around secrets. However, for a non-idempotent setter it says nothing about whether re-setting an existing name overwrites, merges or duplicates — the key behavioral question an agent faces when calling it twice.

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, zero filler: the core action and its scope come first, the `remove` case second, the safety constraint last. Everything in the text carries information an agent needs.

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?

Covered: what it does, the removal path, and the secrets prohibition, backed by annotations and a well-described schema with no output schema needed. Missing: what a successful call returns and how repeated calls with the same `name` behave, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 86%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters with per-field descriptions including the enum values. The description only loosely re-maps them ('un repo, un entorno, una URL, una cuenta, quién la lleva') without adding format, defaults or interaction rules, so it earns the baseline rather than more.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Apunta o actualiza dónde vive una cosa del proyecto', followed by concrete examples (repo, entorno, URL, cuenta, quién la lleva) that make the concept concrete and distinguish it from siblings like add_name or set_brand. It never explicitly names a sibling to contrast with, which 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?

The description gives a clear use context (record or update where something lives, with `remove` to delete it) and a hard exclusion: never passwords, tokens or keys, only where they are stored. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for adjacent needs (e.g. update_project, add_name), so no explicit routing is provided.

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