Edit a project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that — "changes only the fields sent" (patch semantics) — but says nothing about the destructive consequences flagged by the annotation, e.g. that sending null clears a field or that a topic/country combination may need vocabulary lookups. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the trigger first and the field list second; there is no filler and the key partial-update constraint is included without padding.

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 9-parameter destructive write with no output schema, the description covers the common fields but leaves websiteType, userKeywords and the required id/requestId pair unmentioned, and gives no warning about irreversibility or field-clearing. Workable given the rich schema, but not complete on its own.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters well (including the requestId idempotency contract and per-field constraints). The description only lists a subset of fields and omits websiteType and userKeywords entirely, so it adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ("change the settings of one of their projects") and enumerates the mutable fields, so it is distinguishable from create_project, delete_project and get_project by inference. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger condition ("Use this when the user wants to change the settings of one of their projects"), which is clear guidance for invocation. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer create_project or how to fetch current values first via get_project).

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