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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds the operational context an agent needs: 'Owner-only', patch semantics ('Omitted fields stay unchanged'), the destructive mechanic ('empty strings remove profiles'), and the explicit boundary that images are handled in the app, not here. It also clarifies the tool does not publish, preventing a false expectation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints and prerequisites in descending priority. Every sentence carries information (owner-only, patch behavior, exclusions, image boundary), though the density makes it longer than strictly minimal.

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-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, auth requirement, patch semantics, destructive edge case, unsupported inputs, and what it deliberately does not do. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the empty-string removal semantics and by preempting the misleading 'logoAsIcon' field with 'this tool takes no image fields'. It lists the social profile set the nested object maps to.

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 precise verb+resource ('Set whether the project's Public Delivery Page shows dates...') and enumerates exactly which settings are configurable, including the full list of supported social profiles. An agent can distinguish this from update_delivery_presentation or update_project without opening any schema.

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 explicitly routes reads to the sibling tool ('Read current values with get, kind project') and rules out adjacent actions ('Does not publish the Public Delivery Page', 'Custom links are not supported'). It does not, however, contrast itself against other update_* siblings that might touch overlapping page settings.

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