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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds 'AUTH REQUIRED', clarifies it is a write operation, and mentions it returns a binding contract. It doesn't contradict annotations. It could elaborate on side effects given destructiveHint=true, but annotations already provide that signal.

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 compact sentences front-load key traits (auth, idempotency, write, alias) and then specify the exact purpose. No wasted words.

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?

The description captures the essential behavior: auth required, idempotent write, alias relationship, and what it returns. With an output schema and rich annotations, it doesn't need to detail return structure or error conditions. Missing a bit on the bootstrap interaction, but schema covers that.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., mutual exclusivity of projectId/subdomain, bootstrap fields). The description adds no parameter-specific details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states it's an idempotent project connection write, a compatibility alias for project_connect, and what it does: prepares one accessible project and returns the binding contract. This distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly referencing project_connect as the original.

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 clear context: auth required, idempotent, compatibility alias for project_connect. It implies interchangeability with project_connect and that it prepares an accessible project. However, it doesn't provide explicit exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance.

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