project_modify_project_costs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true; the description merely restates 'modifies' and the PATCH endpoint, which is also the title. It adds no context on partial-update semantics, required permissions, or what happens to omitted cost fields.

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?

Short but redundant: the first line and second line both say 'modifies ... cost,' and the endpoint repeats the annotation title. Front-loaded enough, but no sentence earns extra value.

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?

Given annotations cover the safety profile and the schema fully documents all three parameters, the definition supplies just enough to call the tool. However, for a non-idempotent PATCH mutation it omits any note on partial-update or side-effect behavior, leaving a gap.

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% with a fully documented nested body (cost, costUnit, costSyncTime, etc.). The description only reiterates that id selects the project, adding nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (modifies) and resource (project cost) and clarifies it targets the project specified by id. No sibling in the list modifies project costs, so the tool is distinguishable, though the definition doesn't explicitly contrast with the general project_modify_project.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative conditions are given. It only notes that the cost is identified by project id, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name.

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