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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'persistent projects' framing and the counts-only vs full-state distinction, but that distinction is already spelled out in the schema, so net added context is modest.

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, no filler, with the core action stated first and the two parameter behaviors following. Every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does disclose the two return shapes (counts only vs full editable state with media, timeline, studio). That covers the main unknown for a simple read tool, though it omits error behavior for an invalid or expired project_id.

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 both parameters are already documented there, including the 'omit for latest' default and the payload behavior. The description restates rather than extends this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('Switch Editor projects'), and the singular framing implies one project versus the plural list_editor_projects. It stops short of naming the sibling outright, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 one concrete usage rule (omit project_id to get your latest project), which is real guidance for the default path. It never says when to use this tool versus list_editor_projects or read_editor_timeline, and there are many editor siblings that could be confused with it.

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