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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds two genuinely useful facts: omitted fields retain their value (patch semantics) and the required scope. However, it never explains why the tool is flagged destructive, what is irreversibly lost, or what happens when an unknown id is passed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the two key constraints. The only waste is "Update a project" appearing twice, which reads as a title/body duplication artifact.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the partial-update contract and the authorization requirement, which is the minimum an agent needs. It is still thin on return behavior and failure modes, and the fact that the destructive flag is unexplained leaves an ambiguity an agent cannot resolve elsewhere.

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 0% at the top level — the `request` and `id` parameters are undocumented — and the description compensates with nothing about the request body or id format. The one semantic addition is "fields you leave out keep their value," which is helpful but does not cover the nested field set the schema already enumerates.

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 verb and resource are clear ("Update a project"), so an agent knows the general action. But the sentence is essentially a restatement of the title and name, and it never says which fields are updatable or how this differs from siblings like projects-create, projects-duplicate, or projects-delete.

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 only usage condition given is the `projects:write` permission prerequisite. There is no guidance on when to call this versus projects-duplicate, projects-delete, or projects-retrieve, and no exclusions or preconditions beyond the scope requirement.

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