Create or update project

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by naming the practical consequence of non-idempotency (duplicate projects on repeated calls) and the PATCH/merge semantics of the update path. It does not explain the destructive side of destructiveHint=true, e.g. whether omitted fields are cleared or values overwritten, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded headline sentence followed by two tightly scoped bullets, one per mode. No filler, and the key non-idempotency warning is placed in the leading line where it will be read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. With only three simple parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs to pick the correct mode and call it: branch condition, mutability, and the duplicate-creation hazard.

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 0%, so the burden falls on the description, and it delivers: it explains that project_id is the branch selector for update mode and that name/description are the mutable fields. It does not clarify the empty-string default for project_id/description in the schema, which would be the last missing piece.

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 states a specific verb+resource (create/update a project) and immediately resolves the ambiguity of a dual-mode tool by spelling out the two branches. Siblings are list_projects/get_project, so no other tool competes for this purpose; an agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the 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?

It gives explicit, mutually exclusive conditions: omit project_id to create, pass project_id plus fields to update/rename. That is a complete when-to-use rule for both branches, with the consequence of getting it wrong stated ('each call without project_id creates another project').

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