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

The name 'update_project' suggests a mutation, but the description explicitly says it 'returns the steps', which resolves that ambiguity and is consistent with readOnlyHint=true. It adds useful disclosure about what the returned payload covers (the five enforcement surfaces), though it says nothing about size/format of the returned instructions.

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?

Front-loaded with the return-value statement, then the when-to-call guidance with examples. Two sentences, no filler, nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. The only mild gap is that it does not characterize the shape of the returned steps, which matters because the caller must act on them.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by describing it as operating on 'the current project' implicitly.

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 action and resource: returns the steps to install or update standby.design rule enforcement, with the components enumerated (lint hook, pre-commit, CI, review skill, agent instructions). It never names the closest sibling, get_design_rules, so the boundary between 'get rules' and 'set up/update rules' is left implicit.

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?

Gives concrete invocation triggers with verbatim user phrasings ('Hol Dir das Update', 'update standby', 'set up the design rules here'), which is strong usage context. It stops short of exclusions — it does not say when to prefer get_design_rules or get_design_system instead.

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