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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those hints: the required credential type (user-level deploy key, not a workspace service key) and the fact that the operation can clear as well as set. It does not describe the effect on currently published previews, which would have been a further bonus.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the operation is stated before the credential constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation, the clearing semantics and the auth requirement, which is most of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It omits the password length validation and any statement about what a successful call returns or changes.

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%, so the description carries the burden for both parameters. 'Set or clear' implicitly maps to the nullable password parameter (null clears it), which is a real addition, but the length bounds (min 4, max 200) and the required projectId are left entirely to the schema. Partial compensation, not full.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'Set or clear a project preview password.' The 'or clear' phrasing usefully distinguishes the two modes of the operation. It does not name any sibling, but none of the listed siblings overlap with this resource, so differentiation is not really at stake.

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?

Gives a concrete eligibility constraint: it 'Requires a user-level deploy key, never a workspace service key.' That is a clear when-you-can-call-it condition with an explicit exclusion, which will save an agent from a failed invocation. It stops short of stating prerequisites like project ownership or when clearing vs setting is appropriate.

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