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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying that only the name and description can be updated, implying a partial update. It does not contradict the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, but it doesn't detail other effects, such as what happens if neither field is provided or whether changes are reversible.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with a one-sentence purpose, followed by an Args block listing each parameter with a brief, clear definition. No unnecessary words or repetitive content.

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 simple update tool with three parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core operation and parameter meanings. However, it could benefit from mentioning behavior when both name and description are null (e.g., no-op or error), but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters, including a concrete example format for project_id ('PR-123-456-789') and clear definitions for name and description. This adds significant value since the input schema has 0% description coverage and parameter descriptions are absent. It doesn't explicitly state that name and description are optional, but the schema's defaults convey this.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Update a project's name or description.' It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('project'), and lists the exact fields it modifies, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_node or delete_project.

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 implied: the tool is for updating a project's name or description. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, when not to use it, or any exclusions. The description is clear enough for a basic use case but doesn't provide proactive direction.

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