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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the state machine that gates edits (draft/scheduled/running/paused/finished/archived), the blast radius of changing the ticket code prefix, and that description/objectives are manager-only and never tester-visible. Minor gap: it doesn't say what happens when a field is sent in a state that disallows it (rejected vs silently ignored).

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?

Purpose and partial-update rule are front-loaded, but the closing paragraph is bloated: the six-state enumeration restates rules already given for startAt/endAt in both the description and the schema, and the read-modify guidance is repeated twice. Roughly a third of the text is redundant with structured fields.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is largely complete: prerequisite read step, partial-update contract, state gating, and side effects are all covered. What remains unstated is the editability of name/code by state and the failure behavior on an invalid update.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not carry: description/objectives are manager-facing context persisted across sessions and must not hold conversation notes, and date editability varies by state. The customFieldsRequired/shippingInfoRequired defaults are left entirely to the schema, keeping this just under a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Update this beta project's') and enumerates the exact editable surface: name, description, objectives, ticket code prefix, schedule, onboarding requirements. That field list distinguishes it from siblings like updateTicket, updateStep, and updateTask, which share the 'update' verb but touch different resources.

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?

Explicitly states partial-update semantics ('provide only the fields to change'), prescribes the read-first alternative ('Read the current values first (getProductOverview)'), and routes scheduling actions to publishBeta and launchBeta instead of this tool. It also gives when-not conditions via the per-state date editability rules.

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