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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that expectedSpecVersion prevents stale writes, but it does not clarify replacement-versus-partial-update semantics or other side effects.

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 with no wasted language. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the concurrency constraint follows immediately.

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 non-idempotent mutation with a nested input object and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits how the search configuration is applied, what layerId and title require, and what behavior to expect when search is replaced or disabled.

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 reported as 0%, so the description needs to compensate for the three required parameters. It only explains expectedSpecVersion as a stale-write guard and says nothing substantive about projectId or the nested input object.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Configure how search behaves in a project map.' This clearly distinguishes it from search tools like search and search_view, though it does not explicitly name those 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?

It states that the tool configures project-map search but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of search, search_view, project_update_settings, or other project_configure_* siblings. The only usage-relevant detail is the expectedSpecVersion staleness guard.

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