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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful context that expectedSpecVersion prevents stale writes, but it does not explain the replacement semantics of the computed map, what happens to existing computed fields, or the effect of passing null.

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 sentences with no waste: the purpose is front-loaded and the concurrency guard follows immediately. The description is appropriately sized for a tool definition.

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?

The tool has a complex nested expression schema, no output schema, and minimal annotation detail. The description identifies the purpose and stale-write guard but leaves major gaps around expression syntax, computed map replacement behavior, null removal, and parameter usage.

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 but largely does not. It explains only why expectedSpecVersion is required; projectId, layerId, and especially the computed expression map format and keyed variable semantics are not clarified beyond the schema structure.

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 and resource: configuring computed feature fields and expressions for a project map. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling configuration tools such as project_configure_popup, project_configure_legend, and project_configure_search, though it does not explicitly call out 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?

The description implies the tool is for configuring computed expressions on a project map, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The note about expectedSpecVersion is a parameter constraint rather than usage guidance.

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