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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: statuses are matched by name and a provided status list is effectively the full set (existing ones must be included to survive), while omitting the field avoids touching statuses at all. It stops short of describing permissions or confirmation requirements.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the status-matching contract. No filler and nothing 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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the destructive/open-world profile. The remaining minor gap is the fate of existing statuses not listed when a status array is supplied, which the description gestures at but never states explicitly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: name matching, the keep/reorder/add contract, and the omit-means-name-only rule. These resolve ambiguity the schema's terse 'matched by name' note does not fully 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?

States specific verbs and resources: rename a project and adjust its workflow statuses. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_project, update_task, and update_tag without needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for invocation: include existing statuses to keep/reorder, add new ones, or omit statuses entirely to change only the name. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use create_project or update_task instead), so routing is left to the sibling names alone.

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