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

Annotations already declare the operation as non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the optimistic concurrency behavior—stale edits conflict rather than overwrite—which is valuable context beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict any annotation and enriches the safety profile.

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 zero waste. The action and critical inputs are front-loaded, followed by a single clause on concurrency behavior. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 an output schema and rich annotations, but the description omits explanation of the editable fields (name, goals, etc.) beyond implicit 'project context'. With seven parameters and no schema descriptions, an agent cannot know all updateable fields without external context. The workflow hint (use expected_revision) partially compensates, but the description is not fully complete.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It explains only expected_revision and request_id, leaving name, goals, summary, repository_url, and project_id without semantic clarity. Schema titles offer minimal hints but no functional meaning, so the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate all parameters.

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 edits project context, using the specific verb 'edit' and a distinct resource ('project context'). It emphasizes revision safety, which differentiates it from generic update tools and sibling tools like project_document_revise. The purpose is unambiguous and context-specific.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to supply expected_revision from project_get and a new request_id, providing concrete sourcing guidance. It also implies the correct workflow (fetch first, then update) and warns about stale edits, giving clear conditions for invocation.

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