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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile comes from structured data. The description's one real contribution is PATCH semantics—omitted fields are untouched—which is meaningful context an agent would otherwise have to infer, but it does not explain what makes the call destructive or whether archiving is reversible.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the capability list front-loaded and the patch-semantics caveat immediately after. Every clause carries 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?

For a 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential mental model: what can change and that unspecified fields persist. The remaining gaps—permissions and return value—are moderate but not blocking, since the schema carries the field-level detail.

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 71% and the schema already documents enums and the null-as-unlimited spend cap. The description adds the important partial-update rule and maps intent to fields (rename→name, archive→status, spend cap→budget fields), but alertAtPct and budgetPeriod are never hinted at in prose.

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 gives specific verbs and outcomes—rename, archive/reactivate, change spend cap—against a clearly named resource, which lets an agent distinguish this from create_project, get_project, and delete_project without opening a schema. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling that handles permanent removal, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 listed capabilities imply when to reach for this tool, and 'Fields you omit are left as they are' signals a partial-update use case. However, no alternative is named (e.g., archiving here vs. delete_project for permanent removal), and there is no statement of prerequisites such as required role or ownership.

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