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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/idempotent, but the description adds real consequence detail beyond them: INACTIVE projects can no longer be used for time tracking, and unspecified fields are left untouched. That downstream side effect is exactly the risk context an agent needs before mutating.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the operation split, followed by the side effect and the partial-update rule. No filler and nothing buried.

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 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, safety annotations, and no output schema, almost everything needed to invoke it correctly is present. Only the response shape and a pointer to sibling read tools are absent, both minor.

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 a 3 is the floor; the description earns above baseline by explaining the observable effect of the status enum value (INACTIVE blocks time tracking), which the schema's "New status." does not convey. The project_id and name params need no further gloss beyond the 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 class ("WRITE: rename ... or switch") and resource (project), and enumerates the only two mutate-able fields. This clearly separates it from kiwihr_create_project, kiwihr_get_project, and kiwihr_list_projects without needing to open a 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 clear conditions for use — renaming or toggling ACTIVE/INACTIVE — plus the partial-update rule ("Only the fields you pass are changed"), which is what an agent most often gets wrong on update tools. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use are named, so it stops short of a 5.

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