A research application is read under different conditions from a paper. The reviewer must judge work that has not yet been completed. That makes a clearly stated problem, a testable idea and a credible plan especially important. Sophisticated wording does little if the central question remains hard to locate.
Begin with the knowledge gap. What is not understood, why does it matter, and what would become possible if the gap were addressed? The answer should lead directly to your aims. Aims that are only a list of techniques make it difficult to judge what scientific progress the project would achieve.
Next make the relationship between aims and methods explicit. For each aim, identify the key experiment or analysis, the primary readout and the outcome that would inform the hypothesis. Consider dependencies and alternatives. If the first experiment is inconclusive, can the project still generate useful knowledge?
Feasibility is part of the scientific argument. Reviewers need enough detail to understand whether the model, expertise, controls, timeline and resources fit the proposed work. Acknowledging a specific risk and a practical contingency is often more credible than claiming that no obstacle is likely.
Before submission, ask an informed reader to identify the question, the contribution and the most important feasibility concern after a quick first read. If their answers differ sharply from what you intended, the application may need a structural revision before line editing.