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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the returned link loads this exact project in the editor and enables manual editing and export, which tells the agent what the artifact is for. It stops short of noting link expiry, permission requirements, or whether the recipient needs an account.

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 sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, and the return shape stated compactly. The parenthetical about the editor loading exactly this project is slightly wordy but does carry meaning, so little is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, the nature of the returned link, and the return shape, so an agent has what it needs to invoke it. Minor gaps (link lifetime, access requirements for the recipient) are the only thing left unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents projectId and the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'the editor loads exactly this project from the URL' gestures at the identifier's role but adds no format, constraint, or lookup guidance beyond the schema.

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+resource: 'Get a link that opens a project directly in the editor,' and clarifies the URL loads exactly that project. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like show_project, embed_project, or create_project, so an agent must infer the boundary from name alone.

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 clause 'where the person can see the work, change it by hand and export it' implies the use case (handing a project off to a human editor), which is real implied guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as show_project or embed_project.

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