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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so safety is partly covered. The description still adds meaningful context beyond them: the bearer-authenticated ownership requirement and the non-obvious fact that linking also "updates the project's plan." It stops short of explaining what the plan change entails or any rate/permission constraints.

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, front-loaded with the action, with no filler or redundancy. Every clause carries information: the resource, the auth model, the accepted input forms, and the state change.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description covers auth, input, and the side effect, leaving only minor gaps such as what the plan update means or whether re-linking is safe (idempotent hint covers that).

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% and the sole parameter already documents "project URL or 12-character project ID" with length bounds. The description essentially restates that same union, adding no new format, validation, or precedence detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Link an existing Bootify project") and narrows scope to a bearer-authenticated user, so the core action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as getProject, copyProject, or importSqlSchema, so an agent gets a clear purpose but no routing signal.

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 only implied: "existing" project plus a bearer-authenticated user hints at when it applies, and "updates the project's plan" hints at a side effect. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no alternative named (e.g., import or copy for projects that don't yet exist), and no stated prerequisites beyond the auth hint.

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