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

Annotations already mark it non-read-only but idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the call is asynchronous, the server does preparatory work (media and verified mattes) before the project is usable, and a jobId must be polled via wait_job. It does not mention auth requirements or what happens on retry with the same idempotencyKey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the async lifecycle and the next-step call. Every sentence carries information; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 7-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the async flow but leaves the entire parameter surface undocumented and never routes the agent away from apply_template or create_project. Adequate for the job lifecycle, inadequate 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 0% across 7 parameters, including nested structures (media with three mutually exclusive shapes, values, brandKitId, preset, idempotencyKey), and the description explains none of them. An agent gets no guidance on template identifier format, the media variants, or how idempotencyKey interacts with the idempotentHint.

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 from a catalog or org template'), which is clearly distinguishable from create_project (blank project) and apply_template (applies a template to an existing project). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the boundary, but the template-sourced framing is clear.

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?

Gives concrete follow-up routing ('Pass the returned jobId to wait_job(kind="template")'), which is genuinely useful workflow guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over apply_template or create_project, so the primary selection decision is left to inference.

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