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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the concrete list of mutable fields. However, it never explains what the 'destructive' hint means here - whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared - which is the exact behavior an agent needs before calling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and affected fields, and no wasted words. The field list is placed where it is most useful.

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?

The listed fields address the main weakness of the nested patch schema, but for a destructive mutation with a confusingly similar replace sibling and no output schema, the description should also cover patch-vs-replace semantics and what is preserved.

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%, but the 'patch' parameter is a free-form object documented only as 'Fields to update.' The description supplies the allowed keys (display_name, description, show_public, live_url), which is real added value beyond the schema rather than a restatement.

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 plus the exact metadata fields affected, so an agent knows this is a metadata patch rather than a deploy or config change. It never distinguishes itself from close siblings like build_replace_project or build_set_project_mode, which is the remaining gap.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With build_replace_project and build_set_project_mode in the sibling set, the description should say when a partial metadata patch beats a full replace, and no such routing information is given.

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