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

Annotations already declare this as write, destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds useful context: partial update semantics, status validation against account statuses, HTML support in text fields, and the PUT endpoint; it does not detail permissions or irreversibility, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: 'WRITE' and the core action are stated first, followed by lookup, partial-update, status, HTML, and endpoint details. Every sentence carries actionable information with little 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 14-parameter destructive mutation with nested custom fields, the description covers the key behavioral constraints and helper tool while annotations and schema carry safety and parameter detail. It could say more about permissions or irreversibility, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so parameter meaning is already well documented. The description mostly mirrors lookup and status details already present in the schema, adding only the status-field reference and HTML note; custom field structure is left to 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 and resource ('update fields of an existing project') plus the lookup modes and partial-update behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from create/get/list siblings.

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?

Explains that it is for existing projects, supports UID/name/name-fragment/most-recent lookup, and notes that only passed fields change. It also points to suitedash_get_project_fields for status values, though it does not give explicit when-not guidance or a direct alternative.

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