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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds real value by explaining that expectedSpecVersion exists to prevent stale writes (an optimistic-concurrency note not visible in annotations). However it omits the merge semantics of the settings object and what the response looks like.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one constraint that matters. No wasted text, though it is somewhat sparse for a tool with nested settings.

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 nested, non-idempotent mutation with annotations and rich schema documentation, the description covers the core concurrency requirement. It does not clarify merge behavior or confirm what changes/returns, leaving some gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 expectedSpecVersion purpose (guarding against stale writes) is explained in the description, and the settings object's keys are thoroughly documented in the schema itself. But projectId is undocumented and the reported coverage metric is low, so the description only partly compensates.

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 and resource ('Update Studio-owned map settings') and scopes it via 'Studio-owned' and 'contour lines,' which meaningfully distinguishes it from the sibling project_update_settings. It stops short of an explicit contrast, but the resource and ownership scope are clear.

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 by 'Studio-owned' map settings versus the project-level sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement or named alternative. The agent must infer the routing from the ownership qualifier alone.

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