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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that this is a full replacement operation requiring every field, and warns that reading first is necessary to avoid overwriting unintended values. This adds important behavioral context not covered by the safety hints alone.

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 tight sentences with the replacement semantics front-loaded and the read-before-update warning immediately after. There is no wasted wording.

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 four-required-parameter mutation tool with useful annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical full-replacement behavior and the read-first safeguard. It could say more about success behavior or project_id, but it is largely complete 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 names the three replaceable fields and reinforces that every field must be sent, which helps compensate for the 50% schema description coverage. It does not explain project_id semantics or add field-specific details beyond what the schema already provides for timezone and postal_address.

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 states a specific verb and resource: replace a project's name, time zone, and postal address. It clearly distinguishes this update operation from sibling operations such as create_project, delete_project, and get_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 clear prerequisite workflow: read with get_project first and change only what is intended. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus create_project or delete_project, but the update context is clear.

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