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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful non-structured fact, the required write scope, but says nothing about partial-update behavior (whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved), which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 the operation first and the permission requirement second. No filler, no repetition of the title, nothing wasted.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema and destructive/idempotent annotations, the description covers identity and authorization but omits update semantics — whether it is a partial patch, whether unspecified fields are preserved, and what it returns. Adequate but with visible 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 description coverage is 100% across all 9 parameters, so the schema already names and describes every field. The description adds only the fact that 'id' is the lookup key, which is already implied by the required list, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Update a project document') plus the identifying key ('by ID'), which is enough to distinguish it from the many other update_* siblings and from update_project_document_folder_template. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the closest sibling, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 only guidance is a prerequisite ('Requires project_documents:write scope'). There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus create_project_document, delete_project_document, or list_project_documents, and no exclusions or conditions.

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