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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the schema by disclosing that nulling course_id also clears the institution, an important side effect not visible in the parameter type.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the tricky clearing rule immediately after it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the non-destructive annotations frame the mutation. The one gap is that the anyOf constraint (at least one of title/emoji/course_id) is only implied rather than stated.

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 only 25%, so the description must carry the load; it names and explains the three mutable fields and, crucially, defines the null semantics for course_id. It does not explain the schema's anyOf/minProperties=2 requirement that at least one field be supplied, nor project_id beyond its required status.

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 ('Update') plus the resource ('Studocu project') and the three updatable fields (title, emoji, course). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling create-project by the mutation verb, though it never names 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 only operational guidance is the course_id=null clearing rule, which is really a parameter note. There is no statement of when to use this versus create-project or get-project-state, and no prerequisites are given, so usage is only implied.

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