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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains that only supplied fields are modified, changes run immediately, status changes may trigger workflows, and no deletion/archiving occurs. This gives an agent meaningful side-effect and permission context for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action: 'Modify only supplied project fields.' Every additional clause adds relevant operational context without waste.

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 and a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers permissions, partial-update behavior, workflow side effects, and deletion exclusions. It is largely complete for correct invocation, though it does not describe error behavior or response details.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful semantics for projectStatus ('must exactly match the account') and clarifies partial-update behavior, but does not explain project_id, projectName, estimatedValue, or the employee ID fields beyond what the schema already says.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Modify only supplied project fields.' It clearly identifies this as a partial update operation on projects, distinguishing it from create/get/list siblings even without naming them.

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?

It gives clear usage context: projects.edit permission is required, status names must match the account, and deletion/archiving is excluded. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as get_project or create_project, which keeps it from a 5.

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