Manage project reviews

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, lowering the burden. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that mark_reviewed stamps projects and advances next review dates, and that set_schedule changes intervals. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could more explicitly warn that set_schedule overwrites existing schedules.

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 a single dense paragraph organized by operation, with the workflow label front-loaded and no filler. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because the packed semicolon-heavy structure requires careful reading, though it remains efficient.

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?

The schema is rich, covering all parameters, constraints, and mutual exclusions, and an output schema exists, so the description only needs to provide operation-level orientation, which it does. The only notable gap is not explicitly stating that mutating operations are destructive, but the annotation already supplies that signal.

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 operation-level grouping of parameters like all, projectIds, and unit/steps, but it largely restates the schema's own descriptions rather than adding genuinely new parameter semantics.

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 workflow and enumerates three distinct operations with concrete verbs and resources: list_due, mark_reviewed, and set_schedule. This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic project-management siblings and from the title alone.

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 description explicitly maps each operation to its intended task: listing due reviews, marking projects reviewed while advancing schedules, and setting review intervals. It does not name alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools, but the operation-level routing is clear and sufficient for the review workflow.

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