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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one useful non-annotation fact — the required write scope — but says nothing about partial-update semantics, i.e. whether omitted fields (name, sort_order, description) are left untouched or cleared.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the scope requirement. No filler, padding, or restatement of the title.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and four fields, the description is thin: it does not clarify partial-update behavior or whether unset fields are preserved, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces here. The scope requirement partially compensates, but key mutation semantics are left to inference.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema with formats, lengths, and ranges. The description adds only the ID-lookup framing, which is baseline-appropriate but no incremental value.

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 (update) and a precise resource (project phase category, distinguished from the sibling update_project_phase) with the lookup key (ID). It is clear what the tool acts on, though it does not contrast itself with alternatives such as bulk_update or update_project_phase.

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 description names the required scope but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the scope, and no routing away from siblings (e.g., bulk_update for multiple categories, update_project_phase for the phases themselves).

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