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

Annotations already disclose that the tool is not read-only, is idempotent, and is destructive, so the behavioral safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful authorization requirement (project_tasks:write scope), but it does not explain update semantics such as whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, which is important for a 12-parameter mutation tool.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the scope requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with a destructiveHint, the description leaves important behavior unstated, notably whether this is a partial update or full replacement and what happens to unspecified fields. The schema and annotations help, but the definition is still not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 the schema already documents all 12 parameters, including enums for status and priority. The description adds only 'by ID', which is already captured by the required id parameter in the schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('project task') and scopes it by ID, which identifies it among the many update_* siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related siblings such as update_project_milestone or update_project_phase beyond the resource name.

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 only states a prerequisite scope ('Requires project_tasks:write scope'). It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_project_milestone, bulk_update, or list_project_tasks.

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