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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that values are stored encrypted, never returned by any tool, pass through the conversation, and that existing variables not named are kept (merge semantics). These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs to reason about safety and repeat invocations.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then security behavior, then merge behavior. No filler and every sentence carries distinct 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the security and merge semantics an agent needs. Nothing essential is missing 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters and the nested name/value objects are fully documented in the schema. The description adds the {NAME} reference convention but little else beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Add or update) and resource (a project's variables), and clarifies what variables are (demo credentials and other values guides reference as {NAME}). An agent can easily distinguish this from siblings like update_project or put_guide.

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?

Explains a meaningful usage consideration: credentials can be kept out of chat by setting them on the dashboard page instead. It gives clear context for when to use this tool, but does not name a sibling tool or a hard exclusion condition.

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