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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), yet the description still adds real behavioral context: patch semantics, the return value ("the project as it is now"), and three distinct failure conditions including the name-collision case. That failure-mode disclosure is the kind of information an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and mutable fields, followed by update semantics, return behavior, and failure modes. No sentence is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return contract, and for a mutation tool it covers patch behavior and error conditions. An agent has everything it needs to invoke this correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the project identifier and the "" clear convention for description. The description only restates the mutable field names, adding no new syntax or format detail beyond that baseline.

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 and resource ("Change a project's name, description or color") and scopes exactly which fields are mutable. It also explicitly rules out the creation case ("it is never created here"), which separates it from the taskhold_create_project sibling.

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?

"Only fields you pass change" gives clear partial-update guidance, and "Fails on an unknown project (it is never created here)" tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice. It stops short of naming the sibling to use instead for creation, so it is clear context without an explicit alternative.

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