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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real value by specifying what 'dev' actually permits (wipe data, keep credentials) versus what 'live' protects. It stops short of stating the return value or whether the switch itself is reversible, so slightly below top marks.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and action, then mode semantics, then the switch-timing rule. No filler.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, mode behavior, and switching workflow. Only the absence of any return-value note (there is no output schema) keeps it off a 5.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum already documents 'dev'/'live' semantics in detail, so the description's mode explanation largely restates it. It adds only the 'default' fact, so the baseline 3 is correct here.

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 and resource ('Set a project's build mode') and immediately distinguishes the two modes, naming the sibling tool build_replace_project that the 'dev' mode governs. An agent can tell it apart from build_replace_project or build_update_project without opening either schema.

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 explicit both-direction guidance: 'Switch to dev before replacing, to live when it's in production.' The alternative (build_replace_project) is named and the condition that makes this tool a prerequisite is stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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