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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral details: projects are persistent, omitting project_id selects the latest, and include_payload=true returns the full editable state. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences provide all essential information with no filler. Every phrase earns its place and directly aids tool selection and invocation.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters, the description is adequate. It covers purpose, parameter behavior, and default selection, but the absence of an output schema means the agent does not know exactly what a non-payload response contains.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden. It explains project_id's omission behavior and include_payload's effect, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types. It stops short of specifying the default payload behavior or exact response shape.

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 verb 'Inspect' clearly identifies this as a read operation on Switch Editor projects. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_editor_project and get_editor_run by emphasizing persistent projects and the ability to retrieve the current project.

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 provides clear usage context: inspect persistent projects, omit project_id for the latest, and include_payload for full state. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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