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

Annotations already declare that the mutation is non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: only supplied fields are changed, and passing all three gate fields empty is refused. It omits auth requirements and return behavior, though an output schema exists.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and uses only two sentences with no wasted framing. The trigger scenario and key constraint both earn their 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?

For a complex 22-parameter mutation, the annotations, full schema, and output schema reduce what the description must carry. The description supplies purpose, a typical failure-driven use case, partial-update behavior, and a refusal constraint, though it highlights only a subset of the updatable fields rather than the full scope.

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 100% across all 22 parameters, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds a cross-field constraint not expressed in the schema: passing all three gate fields empty is refused, and it reinforces that the update is partial rather than replacement.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Change,' and resource, 'project,' then enumerates the kinds of settings being updated. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as create_project and list_projects because it focuses on modifying an existing project.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger scenario: typically after a run failed with login_failed and the login gate needs a selector or text instead of a URL fragment. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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