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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the concrete consequence: values are overwritten and a status change can remove the site from normal use. That is meaningful context beyond the structured hints, though it omits whether unmentioned fields are cleared and what a success response contains.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope of the mutation stated first and the caution second. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough to invoke correctly and warns about the risky path. What is missing is the status enumeration and confirmation of whether omitted fields are 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it names three of the four properties (name, description, status). However it gives no format, allowed status values, or per-field behavior, and omits projectId entirely, leaving real gaps for an undocumented schema.

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 (update) and resource (project) plus the three mutable fields (name, description, status), which cleanly separates it from read siblings like get_project and creation siblings like create_project. No sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of 5.

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 a conditional caution – confirm with a person before changing status because archiving takes the site out of normal use – which implies when to be careful, but never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as request_change or create_project, and names no exclusions.

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