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

Annotations only mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes beyond by explaining this is the shared intent layer that tasks are measured against. However, it does not mention operational consequences such as whether the brief replaces or merges existing content (only the schema hints at this for brief_md), so transparency is solid but not rich.

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 sentences with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the second sentence earns its place by explaining why and when to update. Ideal length for the described scope.

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 an 8-parameter write tool with no required fields and no output schema, the description plus partially covered schema leaves the agent without guidance on how to identify the project/client or what a successful update returns. The purpose and timing are clear, but operational completeness is only moderate.

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 exactly 50%, so the description must add semantic value. It usefully groups goal/brief/facts/links under the 'intent layer' idea, but it doesn't clarify identifier selection (project vs project_id, client vs client_id) or which parameters are needed when only one field changes.

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 names a concrete action and resource: 'Write the shared project brief, structured facts, and reference links,' and adds the conceptual role that this is the 'intent layer every task under the project is measured against.' It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like update_project or update_client_context, so it misses the top score.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'keep it current when the goal or ground rules change.' It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which prevents a 5.

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