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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: workspace_id is optional and resolves to the only workspace membership or the personal workspace. It omits error/permission behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the create action and the workspace-targeting rule. No filler, though the second sentence is more about downstream workflow than this tool.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotation-independent documentation of the inputs, the description covers only workspace resolution. Nine parameters, including a required idempotency_key, are left unexplained, which is a substantial gap.

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 10 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It only clarifies workspace_id defaulting and leaves required fields like name and idempotency_key, the framework enum, and the many optional fields entirely undocumented.

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+resource ('Create a project') and scopes it to a workspace, which cleanly separates it from the read/update/delete project siblings. It does not name an alternative 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?

The description hints at the lifecycle ('Use its ID to import existing experiments'), which implies the follow-up tool hypotize_experiments_import. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus project_get/update/list, nor any preconditions, so usage is only implied.

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