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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two concrete consequences — custom domains stop being served and the subscription shrinks with a prorated credit — which is real added value. However, it omits reversibility, whether data is lost, permission/ownership requirements, and confirmation expectations, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation that changes service availability.

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 core action, then the two consequences. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and the two most important side effects. It is close to complete but would benefit from stating reversibility and whether the change is immediate.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Project name'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the project argument (e.g., accepted identifier format or what happens on an unknown name), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 plus the target state: 'Move a project back to the free plan.' That target state is what separates it from the sibling project.upgrade, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Usage is implied by the action (you downgrade when you want to leave the paid plan), and base effects are described, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of project.upgrade as the inverse alternative, and no stated preconditions such as being on a paid plan.

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