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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that updating the goal link with 0 unlinks, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't mention whether partial updates merge or replace fields, or any permission/validation requirements.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, lists key fields without redundancy. It could mention the idempotent nature or patch semantics, but it is appropriately sized for the content it conveys.

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 mutation with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it doesn't specify whether updates are partial or full replacement, what happens on invalid enum values, or whether unsetting fields is possible beyond goal_id. The annotations cover safety, but behavioral details are thin.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds a couple of clarifications (goal link with 0 to unlink, target date format) that reinforce but do not significantly extend schema semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full coverage.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('a project'), and lists the mutable fields (name, tier, status, goal link, target date). It partially distinguishes from siblings like update_goal or update_habit, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_project, update_task, update_goal). The context is obvious for a project update, but no exclusions or conditions are provided.

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