Update project settings

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

The annotations already signal a mutating operation, so the description's added value is the disclosure that alternativeBrandNames and alternativeDomains are replaced wholesale rather than appended, and that brand/market changes are blocked by historical measurement dependencies. This goes beyond what the structured fields provide.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the critical caveat is separated into a clearly labeled note. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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 no output schema and five optional parameters, the description covers scope, editable fields, list replacement behavior, and immutable constraints. A small gap is that it does not explicitly mention omitting a field leaves it unchanged, but the schema's optional declarations and the overall framing make this reasonably inferable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds actionable meaning by explaining the replacement semantics for the two list parameters, instructing the agent to pass the complete list, and clarifying that brand name and market country are intentionally absent from this update tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Correct') and resource ('what the active project tracks'), then enumerates all mutable fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like create_project and update_prompt by scoping to the active project and explicitly listing what cannot be changed.

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 clearly says the tool acts on the active project and explicitly states that brand name and market country cannot be changed here because a different brand/market is a separate project. This gives a when-not condition and implies the alternative, though it does not explicitly name 'create_project' as the sibling to use.

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