set_project_favorite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds a meaningful version gate, but it omits the two-phase preview-then-apply workflow, which is the single most important behavioral trait for a mutation tool flagged destructive.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, prerequisite second. Nothing superfluous and nothing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the version gate is covered. But for a mutation tool annotated as destructive and idempotent, the description should surface the preview/approval requirement rather than leaving it entirely to the schema's confirm field.

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%; all three parameters—including the confirm preview semantics and the flexible project identifier matching—are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is acceptable at the baseline, but there is no extra semantic value.

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 pair and resource ('mark or unmark a project as a favorite'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool changes. No sibling tool covers favorites, so the absence of explicit sibling differentiation is not harmful, but it also isn't addressed.

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?

The version prerequisite ('Requires OpenProject 17.0 or later') is a genuine usage condition and a useful one. However, the description gives no guidance on when to prefer this over project update flows, and—most importantly—it never mentions the preview/confirm step that the schema's confirm parameter enforces.

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