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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real substance on top: exactly what is overwritten ('replacing the stored ones', including file-sourced dates for imported projects), the blast-radius limiter ('only tasks whose dates actually change are saved'), and the authorization requirement ('requires write permission'). This is precisely the extra context the annotations cannot convey.

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, front-loaded with the action and its destructive effect before the usage hint and the permission caveat. The parenthetical about imported projects and the 'only changed tasks are saved' clause both carry information an agent needs, so nothing is padding.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what is overwritten, the scope of the write, and the permission prerequisite. The only gap is what the call returns (e.g. counts of updated tasks or the new project state), which the agent must discover by calling it.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully at 100% coverage (uuid, with a pointer to planitude_list_projects). The description adds no additional meaning about projectId, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters 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 and resource ('fully recalculates dates, slack and critical path of a project') plus the side effect ('saves the new dates, replacing the stored ones'). An agent can distinguish this mutating recalculation from read-only siblings like planitude_critical_path or planitude_monte_carlo without opening any schema.

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 concrete triggers: 'Useful after an import or a shared calendar change.' That is clear context for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g. 'use planitude_critical_path to preview without saving'), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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