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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: incremental persistence across calls, the response telling you what's still missing plus the next question, and the live UI mirroring in the HypeFox app. It doesn't say what happens when a previously saved answer is omitted or overwritten, but that gap is modest given idempotentHint.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, how to call it, what the return means, and the first-project special case. The core action is front-loaded in the first clause with no preamble.

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 16-parameter, nested-schema, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the missing piece the schema can't: the interactive loop (save incrementally, get the next question, stop on complete). The one notable hole is the automatic/manual mode distinction, which silently changes which other fields matter and is left entirely to the schema.

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 63% and the schema itself already carries the conditional logic ("Automatic only", "Business accounts only", "When people is character"). The description adds meaning only for heard_about ("For a first project HypeFox also asks how they heard about it"), and says nothing about the top-level mode switch or how partial payloads interact with required-looking nested objects like character.

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 ("Saves the user's answers to the setup questions") plus the non-obvious scope ("a few at a time") and what it returns ("what's still missing with the next question to ask"). It also routes to the follow-on sibling create_project, so an agent can place it in the setup flow without opening update_project or create_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?

Gives explicit operating instructions — "Send only what the user told you", "ask one question at a time" — and names the handoff condition ("When it says complete, call create_project"). It stops short of stating what this tool should NOT be used for (e.g. re-editing a finished project, which is update_project's job).

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