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

Annotations only set all hints to false, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions the PATCH method and 'send only the fields to change', which is some behavioral context, but then diverges into unrelated information about app_url and plan-gated timeline views, which do not describe this tool's side effects, auth, or error behavior. The description does not disclose what fields are accepted or what happens on success/failure.

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?

The first two sentences are useful, but the next two sentences about app_url, other views, and plan gating are tangential to updating a project. This extra information makes the description less concise and obscures the core usage information.

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?

Given the tool has nested input objects, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description should clarify the request structure, accepted fields, and response. It only covers some prerequisites and goes off-topic. The plan-gating comment is irrelevant to the update operation itself, and the discrepancy around company_id weakens reliability.

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 description states 'Requires the company_id path parameter and the project id', but the schema places company_id in the body object, not in path params, creating a contradiction. It also gives examples of updatable fields (title or description) but does not provide a complete list. The schema's own property descriptions are not leveraged by the description, and the overall coverage is low.

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 'Partial update (PATCH) of a project', which is a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from the full 'update_projects' sibling. It also clarifies the partial semantics with 'send only the fields to change'.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when you need to change a subset of project fields, using PATCH. It also states the required parameters (company_id and project id), providing prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like update_projects for full updates, though the naming makes it implicit.

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