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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds no further context about side effects, such as whether the project is created in a default workspace or if it triggers any notifications. Since there is an output schema, the response format is likely clear. However, the description does not disclose any potential side effects or required permissions, though the openWorldHint=true suggests it may operate in an open environment, so the lack of detail is acceptable.

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 a single concise sentence that effectively communicates the purpose. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no extraneous details. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is appropriately sized.

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?

The description is sufficient for the simple create operation, especially with a rich input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema. It covers the core purpose. However, it could benefit from a note on what happens after creation (e.g., project becomes visible immediately) but given the schema and annotations, it is largely complete. The missing information is minor and does not impede correct usage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (name, visibility, description) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond 'cloud video project', which is generic. It doesn't clarify the distinction between visibility options, but the schema already does that. Thus, the description provides minimal added value for parameters, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 'Create a cloud video project' clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'video project'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like vivu_list_projects or vivu_get_account, which are about listing or retrieving. The context of 'cloud' clarifies it's a cloud-based project, aligning with the tool's purpose.

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 indicates when to use the tool (when creating a new project), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related actions like editing or deleting. However, the sibling list provides context, and the action is unambiguous. The description could mention that it is only for project creation, and not for updating or deleting projects, but the verb 'create' inherently implies this.

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