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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely behavioral fact — slug is derived from name when omitted — but says nothing about name/slug collisions, failure modes, or what happens if the slug already exists.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the derived-field caveat immediately after it.

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 and the full parameter set is richly described in the schema, so the description needn't explain return values or tenant resolution. It is complete at the level it aims for, though a note on creation-time failure modes would round it out.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the detailed tenant_slug fallback behavior. The description's auto-generation note merely restates the slug field's schema description, adding no new 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new project'), which is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutators like kb_projects_update and kb_projects_archive. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, but the verb is unambiguous enough to route correctly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus kb_projects_update or kb_projects_restore, and no stated prerequisites. The only contextual rule (tenant targeting when the token spans multiple workspaces) lives entirely in the schema, not the description.

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