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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the required auth scope (project_risks:write), which an agent cannot derive from annotations. It still omits the critical mutation semantics: whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, and that a destructive overwrite occurs.

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, zero filler, with the operation front-loaded and the prerequisite scope appended. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded or restated from 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 12-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers identity, operation and auth but leaves partial-update behavior and error cases (unknown ID, invalid enum) unstated. Annotations absorb the safety disclosure, so this is merely adequate rather than complete.

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 every one of the 12 parameters is already documented in the schema, and the description correctly adds nothing duplicative. The only requirement (id) is reflected in the schema's required array. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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") plus resource ("project risk") and the keying mechanism ("by ID"), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from create_project_risk, delete_project_risk, get_project_risk and list_project_risks. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the read/write boundary they represent.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool updates an *existing* risk, so an agent infers it must not be used to create one. There is no statement of when to prefer update_project_risk over, say, create_project_risk or bulk_update, and no guidance on the partial-update case (which of the 11 optional fields are needed).

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