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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with 'seuls les champs fournis changent', which declares partial-update semantics an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone. It omits side effects such as tag auto-creation or tasks following a space change, and says nothing about permissions or reversibility.

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?

A single short clause with no filler, and the identification of the tool comes first. It is terse to the point of being sparse, but nothing in it is wasted or 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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is thin: it never mentions the required id, the cascading effect of moving a project between spaces, tag auto-creation, or what the response contains. An agent could invoke it correctly on simple fields but would go in blind on the riskier ones.

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?

With 67% schema coverage across 9 parameters, the schema carries most semantic weight, including enum values, date formats, and the cascade note on space_id. The description contributes only the general rule that omitted fields are left untouched, not per-field meaning. Baseline 3 fits.

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 ('Modifier un projet existant'), making clear this is an update of an existing entity rather than a creation. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like dandori_create_project or dandori_update_goal, but the modify-existing-project scope is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives for related operations (e.g., create vs. update, or updating tasks within the project). The only implicit cue is 'existant', which tells the agent the target must already exist.

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