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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: the snapshot is immutable, edits only touch metadata, and there are permission and plan prerequisites. This clarifies the destructiveHint=true annotation (it applies to overwriting metadata, not the snapshot). No rate/limit or response details, but the safety profile is well covered.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the immutability caveat, then permissions and plan gate. No filler, though the permission and plan-gate facts could be consolidated slightly.

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 covers purpose, prerequisites, and the key immutability constraint. It omits whether unspecified fields are left unchanged and what errors/validation apply, but overall it is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It names four fields (name, description, category, isPublic), mapping them to the intended semantics, but says nothing about the required templateId or nullability of category/description, leaving clear gaps.

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 verb+resource ('Update project template metadata') and enumerates the mutable fields, so the scope is clear. It does not explicitly name siblings like get_template or save_project_as_template, relying on the reader to infer the metadata-vs-snapshot distinction.

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 real context: caller must be the template creator or an org admin, and there is a PRO+ plan gate. It also explains the snapshot cannot be edited and must be rebuilt by re-saving from a project, which is effectively a when-not-to-use note. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (e.g., save_project_as_template) for rebuilding.

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