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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is known, but the description adds substantial value beyond that: partial-update semantics ('Omitted fields stay unchanged'), removal behavior ('empty strings remove profiles'), and the fact that image references cannot be changed here. It does not mention reversibility or rate limits, so 4 rather than 5.

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 action and field scope, then constrained by owner-only, partial-update, and non-publish caveats. It is dense and the 11-platform enumeration is long, but every clause carries operational weight; only the platform list borders on padding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers permissions, partial-update and removal semantics, unsupported cases, and where to do related work (images in the app, reads via get_project). Nothing essential to correct invocation 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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: the update is partial (omitted fields unchanged), empty strings clear a profile, and logo/cover references are immutable through this tool. These go beyond the terse per-field descriptions in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Set whether the project's Public Delivery Page shows dates and configure ... social profiles') and enumerates exactly what is configurable. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_project or update_delivery, which touch different resources.

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 states the prerequisite ('Owner-only'), routes the agent to get_project for reading current values, and explicitly sends image upload/removal to the app. It also scopes the tool with 'Custom links are not supported' and 'Does not publish the Public Delivery Page', giving clear when/when-not boundaries.

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