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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers critical behavioral details: billing timing, prorated charge to the owner, and an asynchronous approval flow. It also discloses the pending_approval return path and directs the agent to inform the user and poll approval.status.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and pricing, then billing timing, then the approval edge case. Every sentence adds information an agent needs to invoke the tool and handle its outcome.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the most important unknown behaviors: billing, approval workflow, and the non-obvious pending_approval return. It does not explain the normal success return or potential error states, but the critical async path is well documented.

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% for the single 'project' parameter, so the schema already defines it adequately. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Move a project to Pro', plus the plan pricing and included benefits. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like project.downgrade and project.create without needing schema inspection.

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?

It clearly establishes the context for use (upgrading a project to Pro) and implies the alternative is project.downgrade. It also tells the agent what to do after a pending approval result, though it does not explicitly state when to avoid the tool or list prerequisites.

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