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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral context: disabling Maintain keeps existing clones but blocks future get_scaffold access. It does not fully restate key-rotation invalidation, but that is covered by the schema and annotations.

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 core actions and followed by the most important side effect. There is no redundant or filler text.

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, three-parameter setter with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: the target resource, optional operations, and the key consequence of turning Maintain off. Minor gaps around rotation effects and full authentication prerequisites are covered elsewhere in the schema or annotations.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description compensates for the undocumented maintain parameter by explaining that it turns Maintain on or off. It also conveys that maintain and rotate can be combined via 'and/or', while projectid semantics are handled by the schema.

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 specific actions (toggling Maintain and rotating a project key) on a named resource (a project). It is clear enough to distinguish this setter from read-oriented siblings like get_projects and get_scaffold, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage by explaining that Off preserves existing clones while stopping future get_scaffold access, which helps an agent understand one important scenario. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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