project_settings

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description reinforces caution with 'change them only as the researcher asks', which is useful alignment, but it never explains why the operation is destructive or what the change semantics actually are.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the show/change dichotomy, and the list of settings is illustrative rather than exhaustive. Little wasted text, though the parenthetical filename adds marginal 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile. With only two optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 both parameters (changes, project) are documented with dotted-key syntax and the omit-to-only-show behavior. The description lists setting categories but adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail 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?

The description names a specific verb pair (show/change) and resource (a project's settings), then enumerates concrete settings such as search years, records per source, and fetch limit, making the scope tangible. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like create_project or list_projects, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Change them only as the researcher asks' gives a real conditional constraint on when to mutate versus just show. However, there is no comparison to alternative tools and no explicit statement of when-not to use this tool at all.

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