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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining mutation semantics. 'Only the fields you give change' is genuinely valuable context that prevents an agent from re-sending full objects to avoid data loss. It stops short of saying what permissions or ownership are needed, or what happens on a nonexistent project_id.

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 short sentences with no filler and the core semantics front-loaded. It is efficient but borderline under-specified for a seven-parameter mutation tool, so it earns conciseness points without being exemplary.

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, so the description arguably should hint at what comes back after the update, and it never addresses the required project_id or failure modes. For a non-destructive but state-changing tool with seven parameters, the definition is adequate but leaves noticeable gaps.

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 71%, with most fields documented, but the required project_id has no schema description at all and the description does not explain what it identifies. The 'only the fields you give change' sentence usefully frames all seven parameters as optional-overrides rather than replacements, but it adds no field-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Change a listing's details'), making it recognizable as an update operation. However, it calls the resource a 'listing' while the tool, its required parameter and every sibling refer to a 'project', which introduces a terminology mismatch an agent must resolve. No differentiation from siblings such as get_project or ship_project is offered.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the eight sibling tools, so an agent must infer that this is the mutation counterpart to get_project. The only usage-adjacent signal is the partial-update note, which is more behavioral than situational.

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