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

The description adds 'AUTH REQUIRED' and 'WRITES TO THE SPALA CONTROL PLANE', which are not captured by the annotations. It also explains auto-scoping behavior for a sole organization. These traits go beyond the structured annotations and significantly enhance transparency.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the critical auth/write warning, followed by purpose and behavior. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

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 creation tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: auth, write side effect, organization scoping, and non-idempotency. It lacks explicit alternative tool mentions, but the overall context is nearly complete.

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 the parameters are already well-documented. The description restates the organizationId condition but adds no new format or syntax details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Creates' and resource 'a real Spala project', with specific scoping to 'an accessible organization'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like project_list and project_connect by emphasizing real creation in the control plane.

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 gives clear context on when to pass organizationId ('when multiple organizations are available') and that a sole organization is auto-scoped. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for listing or connecting to projects, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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