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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: it requires settings permission, and warns that access-setting changes can affect who sees feedback. It also clarifies partial updates ('explicitly specified settings'), which is useful behavioral information beyond the schema.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it does, the permission requirement, and a caution about access-setting side effects. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has a rich schema and output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the key behavioral aspects: permission requirement, partial update semantics, and the side-effect warning. It could mention idempotency or reversibility, but annotations already cover idempotency and the description's warning is sufficient for a mutation tool.

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 50%, and the description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. The nested 'settings' object is well-documented in the schema, so the description doesn't need to compensate much. The description's mention of 'explicitly specified settings' clarifies the partial-update semantics of the settings object, which adds some value.

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 ('Change') and resource ('project settings'), and clarifies that only explicitly specified settings are changed. It distinguishes itself from get_project_settings by implying a write operation, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.

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 provides clear context: requires settings permission, and advises inspecting current settings first. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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