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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds important context beyond them: required permissions (project lead, organisation owner, or admin), activity-log behavior, partial-update semantics, exclusions, and the return shape ('as get_project does'). It does not explain the destructiveHint or reversibility explicitly, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with purpose and field scope, then adds partial-update behavior, permissions, exclusions, and return shape. Every sentence contributes useful information with no repetition or fluff.

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 five optional parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: purpose, permissions, partial-update behavior, excluded operations, and return shape. Safety characteristics are already carried by annotations.

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%, and the schema already documents each field's meaning, limits, enum, and empty-to-remove behavior. The description lists the same field names and adds 'Only the fields given change,' but does not add per-parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the specific verb and resource ('Changes this project's...') and enumerates the settings it affects (name, website, environments, email prefix, default mail domain). This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling get_project and from address-focused update tools.

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 supplies clear usage context ('as in Project settings') and explicit exclusions: 'Archiving or deleting a project, and keeping whole emails, stay in the app.' It also clarifies partial-update behavior with 'Only the fields given change.' It does not name an alternative tool for excluded operations, so it falls short of a full 5.

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