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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description earns extra credit by spelling out the actual consequence of each mode: public is on and listed, unlisted is reachable by link, private turns the page off. That is real behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations, though it omits permission requirements and whether previously shared links break when switching to private.

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, no filler, with the effect of the change front-loaded before the return-value note. Every clause carries information an agent needs to select and call the tool.

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 two-parameter, fully required mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the action, the enumerated outcomes, and the returned URL, so the essential picture is complete. It falls short of full completeness only on authorization requirements and side effects such as invalidating existing shared links.

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% and the visibility enum is already constrained in the schema, so the schema does most of the work and the baseline applies. The parenthetical glosses ("on and listed", "anyone with the link", "page off") do add operative meaning beyond the bare enum tokens, which nudges it above a pure baseline without fully re-documenting the parameters.

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 and resource ("Set who can watch a project's public page") and grounds it in the concrete URL pattern revid.ai/view/<pid>, which makes the subject unambiguous. It also enumerates the three target states, so an agent can tell immediately that this is a visibility mutation rather than the adjacent rename_project or edit_project operations.

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?

Usage is implied by the described effect on the public page, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note on prerequisites (e.g. project ownership or account tier), and no mention of when to prefer edit_project or duplicate_project instead. An agent can infer the purpose but must guess at the surrounding conditions.

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