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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: explicit consent via publish=true, OAuth handling by the client, rename behavior via id, and the public visibility of submitted content and contact.

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?

The description is tight and front-loaded: the core action is in the first sentence, followed by prerequisites, permissions, and privacy warnings. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.

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 output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, permissions, privacy, rename behavior, and the publish requirement. It does not detail return values or overwrite behavior, but these are secondary given the strong annotations and clear operational constraints.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It explains slug as the key, publish=true as consent, id as enabling rename, and content/contact as public submissions. It does not fully specify formats, but it covers all parameters at a functional level.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Publish or update') on a specific resource ('public project context') keyed by slug. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_project, search_projects, upsert_agent, and upsert_profile by focusing on project context publication.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: requires publish=true, OAuth publishing access, and only own publications can be edited. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_project for reading, but the constraints and scope make when-to-use inferable.

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