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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that every writable field must be supplied, which clarifies the full-replacement semantics. It also mentions plan-gated views, though this is tangential to the update operation itself. Overall, it adds useful context beyond the annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with essential info, but then includes several sentences about app_url and various view routes (tasks/list, board, backlog, etc.) and timeline gating. These are not directly relevant to the update operation and add unnecessary length.

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 full-replacement PUT, the description fails to list the writable fields, which are not present in the schema either. It also contains the incorrect path/body placement for company_id. While annotations and output schema absence reduce the burden, these gaps make the description incomplete for correct invocation.

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 incorrectly states that company_id is a path parameter, while the schema places it inside the body. This contradiction could mislead the agent. Additionally, it does not enumerate the writable fields it says must be supplied, leaving a critical gap beyond what the schema shows.

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 clearly states 'Full update (PUT) of a project' with a specific verb, resource, and HTTP method. It also explicitly distinguishes from the partial-update tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'To change only a few fields, prefer the partial-update tool,' providing a direct alternative. It also states the required parameters (company_id and project id), which tells the agent when and how to invoke the tool.

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