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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), it discloses a genuine side effect: changing the summary re-grades every graded creator at no cost, matching dashboard behavior, and 'the response says how many' describes the return payload. The market-timing note ('applies from the next scan') is also useful. It stops short of auth/permission or rate-limit context.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the affected fields followed by the impact notes; no filler. The semicolon-separated field list is a little heavy to parse but every clause carries information.

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 12-parameter, zero-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context (partial update, re-grade side effect, response hint, market timing). It leaves some smaller cadence/email fields to the schema, which is acceptable given 92% coverage.

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 already 92%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: partial-update behavior, the delayed effect of market, and the downstream re-grade triggered by summary. It does not cover the one undescribed schema field (digest_timezone), which holds it below 5.

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 enumerates exactly which project settings are mutable (summary, market, marketing domain, Play link, re-scan cadence, notification emails), which clearly separates it from siblings like update_offer or update_campaign_settings. The verb is only implied by the field list rather than stated, but an agent can still tell it edits project settings.

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?

'Fields you leave out keep their value' communicates partial-update usage, and the market/summary timing notes imply when the change takes effect. However, no alternative or sibling (e.g. get_project_settings for reading, list_apps for the id) is named, and there is no explicit when-to-use statement.

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